Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

of the proprietor, and giving them an opportunity of pursuing the sports of the field, not as an amusement, but as a livelihood? Such a law, in his opinion, would hold out an act of indemnity to poachers, who, for their own sake, and for the sake of society, should not be en

If game was to be made saleable, the poacher would be better able to supply the market, than any persons whom the law, or the proprietors of game, might permit or employ to kill it. The selling and carriage of game, though prohibited, were nevertheless daily practised; but if it was made free to be brought to market, the more there was sold, the more would there be destroyed. The poacher could procure it cheaper, and with much more ease, in consequence of having made it a study and a trade; he would, therefore, undersell the occupier of the land, or any other privileged person. The farmer also, if let into a share of the amusement of killing game, would, without very forcible restrictions, be tempted to make a lucrative employment of that which was granted only as a limited amusement. Upon the whole, therefore, he would advise the measure to be put off, for the purpose of

with respect to the principle of the bill, and the means by which its provisions should be enforced. The preservation of game seemed generally to be admitted on å real and solid ground of policy; and for his own part, he considered it in a more serious point of view and as productive of more beneficial effects than it ap-couraged to engage in such diversions.— peared to be considered by some gentlemen, especially from its tendency to induce gentlemen to live in the country, where the hunting and killing of game afforded them an innocent amusement. It might, therefore, be laid down as a principle, that the preservation of game should be maintained, not by means oppressive and arbitrary, but by some regulation coercive and efficient. In viewing the degrees of right to kill game, as enjoyed by different orders of men in society, it was not from partiality, but from reason and reflection, that he would indulge that privilege in a superior degree to the higher orders of the state. From their situation and habits in life, it was an amusement better suited than to others, and their gratification claimed, he thought, the first attention. The second class, to whom a participation of this right might properly be given, were the occupiers of land, but in a more limited degree, and only on their own grounds; lest, by too liberal an indulgence in this amusement, they might be diverted from more serious and useful occupations. They ought to enjoy this privilege, however, merely as an amusement, and by no means on the notion of property; for property was a mere creature of the law, and though the law gave the farmer a profit in the ground under a lease, yet it granted him the right only of deriving from it such advantages as the labours of agriculture might fairly produce. This was not the law of England only, but of almost all countries. Nor was it on any general principle of property that the farmer was to enjoy this right, but only in a certain limited degree for relaxation and amusement, and as some encouragement to preserve the game, in the use and enjoyment of which he should participate to a certain extent. There was another class of men, he meant those qualified for the sport, concerning whom there would, he believed, be no difference of opinion. Yet, among other principles of the bill, there was one which went to enable such persons to avail themselves of this privilege. But was not this enabling them to poach and trespass on the lands

more mature examination.

Mr. Francis was of opinion, that every possible encouragement should be given for the preservation of game. But he was also of opinion, that the moment the law gave a property in the land to the tenant, the same moment gave bim a property in the game fed on that land. They might as well take away all his corn, and the produce of his industry, which was fairly his property, as allow birds and other creatures to come and devour it, without his having the permission to destroy them. He could not agree with the right hon. gentleman in thinking that the greater the quantity of game killed, the less would be the quantity of game on the whole. The contrary, in his opinion, would be the case; for if the farmer enjoyed the privilege of shooting and consuming game, he would feel an anxiety to take care of the eggs, and to promote the propagation of game, which, in the present system, from his indignation at the treatment he received, he was rather tempted to extinguish. He agreed that game might be made lawfully saleable; nor did he see any difference between the man who killed it, and the citizen who was supplied with it, only

[blocks in formation]

that the countryman was more eager to kill it, and the alderman more disposed to enjoy the luxury of feasting upon it. Mr. Sheridan was a decided enemy to the game laws as they stood at present, considering them a code highly partial, unjust, and tyrannical. He agreed, that property was the creature of law; but surely it would be conceded to him, that the law ought to follow up its own principle and afford protection to what it created. Was it consistent with law, or common sense, to make it criminal in any man to kill the hare that fed upon his young corn? Was it criminal to remove that animal which eat the produce of his land, because it was necessary to the amusement of classes above him? He could not agree, that if game were made property, it would be more generally destroyed. In fact, the lower orders would, in that case, feel a greater interest in its preservation. He wished the subject to lie over to another session.

Mr. Jenkinson professed himself a strenuous advocate for the preservation of game, as affording a strong inducement for gentlemen to live in the country, from which greater benefits were derived to the nation at large, than seemed to be generally imagined. Many of the evils that existed in a neighbouring nation, were, in a great degree, occasioned by gentlemen not residing on their estates, and, by their absence, losing all influence over those who cultivated their lands. The making of game property would not tend to increase that property, but rather to destroy the diversion. As things stood at present, the farmer had a right to order off any gentleman who came to hunt on his farm; a right which he was never inclined to avail himself of, when he saw no damage would ensue to him. If the farmer was to share in the game, and regard it as his property, then, indeed, would he order him off; seeing otherwise that his property and profit would be injured; and in most parts of the country, if gentlemen were confined to their own estates, they would not highly estimate the amusement. As to what was said by an hon. gentleman, that property once given, all the consequences of property should follow, no notion could be more erroneous. In the case of a farmer and landholder, the law gave them that property but conditionally. The farmer had the land for other uses, and for other sources of profit, not indiscriminately for

Sir J. Rous said, he had conversed with many farmers on the subject, who all con curred in disapproving of the regulations proposed, as opening a source for continual contentions and disputes.

Mr. Cocks was adverse to the bill, on the ground of its attempting to introduce a change in the whole system of laws and government, which our ancestors had so wisely established and sealed with their blood: of that system, the game laws were a part, and if some of them were objectionable, they might be amended.

The question being put, That the word "now" stand part of the question, the House divided:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The bill was then ordered to be read a second time upon that day three months

Debate on the Earl of Lauderdale's Motion respecting the Four and a Half per Cent Duties.] March 4. The Earl of

Lauderdale moved, that the clerk should read various extracts from the Journals of the House of Commons in 1701, the act of the 10th of William c. 3, and the clause of the act 1st of queen Anne, c. 7, settling the civil establishment. The same having been read,

The Earl of Lauderdale began with declaring, that he would avoid canvassing the conduct of a particular person whom it might have been imagined he should have adverted to in consequence of a recent publication.*

No man could more admire that gentleman's genius, wit, and

*The noble earl alluded to Mr. Burke's

Letter to a Noble Lord on the attacks made upon him and his pension in the House of Lords, by the duke of Bedford and the earl of Lauderdale.

talents, nor could any man more sincerely regret the manner in which they had been degraded on a late occasion. But nothing should lead him aside from the broad line of his public duty and the consideration of a subject which he regarded as of extreme importance. It related to the application of a fund which their ancestors had carefully dedicated to approprite purposes, and that at a period when the state of the country, and of its finances, demanded the utmost circumspection. Such was its importance, that lord Clarendon, in the articles against whom the misapplication of this very fund formed a part, declared, in answer to the tenth article of his impeachment, that the restoration of the prosperity of the country was, in a great measure, owing to the operation of this fund. He was well aware, that he laboured under a peculiar disadvantage in bringing this subject before the House at the present period. Such was the profusion to which their lordships were accustomed, that a misapplication of a smaller kind would probably attract but little regard. Those who were in the habit of making such enormous grants, might deem the fund to which he now called their attention, to be of comparatively small importance. He was emboldened, however, by the reflection, that reform was only to be effected by a minute display of the abuses that existed. The noble earl here entered into a history of the 4 per cent fund. The Leeward islands, from whence that fund proceeded, had been first granted to an earl of Marlborough, and they had afterwards become the property of a lord Carlisle. After passing through some other hands, and during the confusions which prevailed in the last century, a lord Willoughby had obtained leave to go out with settlers upon payment to lord Carlisle of one-half of any profit that might be made. They came at last back into the possession of the crown, in consequence of a resignation from lord Kinnoul, a successor of lord Carlisle. So early as 1663, certain duties of 4 per cent were granted by the assemblies of inhabitants, for the first time, for the defence and for In 1701, an inquiry took place in the House of Commons on the subject of the misapplication of the produce of that fund, grounded on a petition presented from the merchants and planters of Barbadoes, and connected with the other islands in question, and in

tification of the islands.

consequence of an instruction from a committee of the House, an address was moved to request her majesty to give orders to have the produce of the fund appropriated to the original purposes; an answer was received from Mr. secretary Vernon approving of the design, and an act was at length passed, placing the fund upon its proper footing, and limiting it to its proper objects. The point thus solemnly established, was confirmed by the practice of many years. It would be found that no pension had been settled upon this fund till that of lord Chatham. It had begun with the example of a very great man, and he hoped that the present distinguished character (Mr. Burke) would be the last on whom grants from this fund would be conferred. It would not be stated in excuse, that the remaining funds were sufficient for the defence of the islands. He had discovered that there had been an intention to provide out of that fund for a noble lord (Auckland) who had on a former day given an account of the transaction himself; he had traced the grant to the last stage, and found that the great seal had never been afExed to it. This could only have arisen from a conviction that it would have been inconsistent with the object of the fund. Though they were then startled with the impropriety of fixing any pension upon this fund, their scruples had since been overcome. They could now boldly stand forward and refuse all inquiry, though told that the revenues of the state were embarrassed and anticipated. He defied any noble lord to say that this was a fair transaction. He would remind the House, that in 1785 a message had been carried down to the House of Commons, representing that this fund was greatly burthened. It was stated by the finance minister of that day, that there was a debt upon this fund of 53,000l. and he likewise proposed to parliament to pay off this debt, and to transfer the allowance of the duke of Gloucester, of 9,000l. a year, from this fund to the general fund, both of which were complied with. If there existed any abuse in the management of this fund, it was the duty of parliament to introduce such regulations as should seem proper for its security. Whenever this fund was burdened, the public were called upon to discharge the arrear; but when there was an overflowing, it was made the pretence for filling the pockets of the sovereign, by clandestinely relieving the

civil list. In the instance alluded to, the | to claims and inheritance, under the money was not only applied to the king's usurped authority, by encroachments use without the knowledge or consent of upon private property, and the property parliament, but it was never brought for- of the crown, which afterwards became ward, and was only discovered upon an subjects of litigation, and were brought incidental motion. Ministers might ima- before the crown for decision; when it gine they were doing their duty, while was determined, after such a complication they were thus violating the laws of their of claims as were produced, that though country: it could only, however, be upon they were forfeited to the crown, it was the principle of a fraudulent trader, not competent for the crowu to grant who never imagines that he has swerved and devise them away; and it was well from honesty so long as he is able to held by lord Clarendon, that it was not escape detection. His lordship then compatible with the interests or dignity moved, "That an Address be presented of the crown, to dispossess the settlers, to his Majesty praying that he would be nor to deprive the descendants of the prograciously pleased to give orders that the prietors, to whom the grant had been duty or imposts of 4 per centum, arising originally made, of their legal inheritance. in Barbadoes and the Leeward islands, be Accordingly, an agreement was made applied for the repairing and erecting such with the representatives of the earl of Carfortifications and other public uses, for lisle, to cousign their claim to the crown for the safety of the said islands, as his Ma- a legal consideration; and as the duties jesty shall direct." which had been formerly levied, were very heavy upon the settlers, the crown agreed with the settlers to renounce all farther claim to the levying of those duties, upon the consideration of receiving annually in lieu thereof 4 per cent on the possessions. By this agreement all parties were accommodated.-Lord Grenville produced five acts relative to this exchange, and read parts of them, upon which he insisted a doubt could not exist, that a free surrender of the per-centage was made for the use of the crown. So much, therefore, for the original claim. In regard to the appropriation of these resources, the original appropriation act expired in the latter end of the reign of king William, and two or three years passed without any notice being taken of the expiration, or the purposes to which the revenues were applied. It was afterwards resolved, however, that they should be appropriated to local purposes, to the improvement of the islands themselves, to the safety and defence of them, or to grants to persons for protecting them. It was unnecessary to refer to the history of those times, to show that the period in which such men as lord Somers and lord Halifax were impeached, could not be the brightest æra of our annals, because it was well known that the House of Commons of that day was not the purest that ever sat. It was at that period, then, and after the demise of the crown, that agents arrived from Barbadoes, to petition parliament for an act of local appropriation, This petition was referred to a committee of supply, who prayed the queen to make

Lord Grenville said, he was glad to find that the noble earl had avoided any allusion to a particular individual (Mr. Burke); had he, however, chosen to introduce that topic, he was fully prepared to vindicate what had been granted to that individual, on grounds equally honourable to his character, and to the conduct of administration. In opposing the motion of the noble earl, he would not avail himself of the argument to be drawn from the novelty of the proceeding, in calling upon that House to come to a resolution with respect to the disposal of public money; he would take up the subject exactly as it had been stated by the noble earl. His lordship then entered into an examination of the right and propriety of appropriating the revenues of the islands to the civil list establishment. The islands were, he said, bought by the crown for a pecuniary consideration, of the representatives of the earl of Carlisle. Antecedent to this purchase, the proprietor had granted certain privileges, in the manner of quit rents, to those persons who cultivated the land and became set tlers, while certain duties were levied upon them by the proprietor, which, as master of the island, he had a right to do; and these duties he levied without doubt or question as appeared by the formal avowal of the assembly itself, which considered them as his clear and indisputable rights. During the civil wars, the islands fell into other hands, who brought them, by care and cultivation, to yield a considerable profit, and thus titles were made

an appropriation of the revenues of those service of the different colonies. In 1735, islands to the particular purposes for a large sum was applied to the governwhich it was requested; and thus parliament of Jersey. Was that island a part ment obviously considered them as parts of Barbadoes, or had it any connexion or of the general fund, and by their request, dependence on it? Nor was that all. intimated that it was optional in the crown Large sums had been uniformly applied to grant them for that specific use, or not, to special services of the crown, not speas it thought proper: for it seems never cified under any head of particular acto have occurred to parliament at this counts. The largest part of the revenue time, that the produce of the 4 per cent of the island of Barbadoes, throughout would apply to those purposes, and to no the whole of the reign of George 2nd, was other. The queen, as might have been so applied, and, not to mention the grant expected, complied with this request; for to the earl of Chatham, it was conformno doubt, if at any period the Commons re- ably to this practice, that a grant of the quested the crown to make a specific appro- same revenues was made to sir Thomas priation of a part of its revenues, a minister Robinson, who had served in one of the would act extremely ill, if he did not advise islands, and received a pension from this the crown to comply with the address. fund for his services, and afterwards reThis, however, was a proof that the crown ceived a farther pension from the same might, or might not, devise these revenues fund, without any doubt or question of without an act of parliament. The appli- such an appropriation. He came next to cation of it by statute in 1701 was, he had the consideration of the grant made to no doubt, meant as a slur upon the cha- the earl of Chatham from this fund, at the racter of our immortal deliverer, king beginning of a reign when the civil list of William; it was impossible to read that the crown was new modelled, and it was address of the parliament and not perceive disputed upon what fund it should be that such was its tendency. These pro- settled, and when all the other acts relative ceedings were confined, however, to the thereto were carefully recited; when those reign of queen Anne; for in an act of acts were examined by the first law chaGeorge 1st, we find the 4 per cent ex- racters this country had to boast of, and cepted from the civil list, and not appro- when Mr. Pratt and Yorke were the atpriated to the civil government: and yet torney and solicitor generals. Lord no address was presented upon that Hardwicke and lord Mansfield had also occasion to the crown, nor was any concurred in the same opinion, and from resolution passed. Perhaps it might be that period, scarcely a man who had filled said, that the appropriation was under- the office of attorney or solicitor general, stood by the spirit of the act in the pre- or a man who had been in the treasury, ceding reign, and that the successor was could be found, who had not been a bound to the adherence to it. The best party to grants from these funds for other comment upon it was, however, founded purposes than those assigned by the apupon the history of the transaction. propriation act. If the question at preIn the very same year of the succession, sent, therefore, were to require no other an application of the revenue of these precedent and authority than that, he islands was made, as foreign to any one of would rest perfectly content with a dethe purposes assigned in the appropriation fence which had been confirmed by such act, as the individual pension which was men as lord Hardwick and lord Mansthe cause of the present discussion. field. When a message was brought In 1714 a pension was granted out of down to the Commons in 1783, to inform these revenues to the governor of Ber- them that these 4 per cent revenues muda, and the first article of the grant were not adequate to the demands upon plainly shows that the parliament at that them, what did parliament then do? Did time considered these revenues as form- it proclaim that all the grants upon these ing part of the revenues of the general revenues were illegal? Directly the remass of the British empire. He did not, verse. It tacitly sanctioned every one of however, rest upon that point only. In them, by taking off a part, and charging the whole course of a century, from that them upon the general funds. On what time to the time in which they were made ground, then, was the right and propriety use of for a noble earl, whose memory of any appropriation to stand, if the penwould he trusted, ever be held sacred by sion recently given to Mr. Burke would Englishmen, they had been applied to the not stand on this? If the right of the

« ZurückWeiter »