The Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped Mr. Attwood said, he was surprised to the House would act towards the public perceive, this most unfounded and fallacicreditor as they would towards their pri- ous charge against the government, so vate ones. The question before the com- pertinaciously persisted in. The governmittee stood thus: the government was ment had taken the 31. premium from the constantly in the habit of issuing Exche-holders of these Exchequer-bills, and was quer bills, the holders of which took them on the implied condition that, on a partieular day, they might be bought up with interest. Now, that being the case, he conceived that the government first making a selection of a certain number of those holders, and then giving them but a 1007. note for every 1037. advanced on their bills, would be nothing more nor less than a fraud int

The Lord Mayor said, a fact had not been stated, which tended to remove from the chancellor of the Exchequer the blame which had been cast upon him. The Exchequer-bills were sold in the market by a broker, on account of the government: if any other course had been taken, it would have operated so prejudicially on the market, that there would have been no premium at all. He conceived, therefore, that the chancellor of the Exchequer did not deserve the severe reprobation with which he had been visited. He thought it but right that there should be a return of 1037. to the holders of those bills.

very easy method of raising annual supplies, per cent interest, these holders did not
for the public service. The hon. member calculate that at the end of twelve months,
for Dover said, an Exchequer-bill is in the or of any other short period, the govern-
nature of an acceptance to a bill of ex- ment was to give them back payment in
change; and who ever heard, said he, of a 1007. only. That was not, and could not
party paying more for his acceptance than be the understanding between the borrower
its amount. Let the case then be taken and the lender. At the same time it was
on the grounds on which the hon. member equally clear, that the holders of the bills
for Dover puts it. The government issues knew they were subject to certain contin-
an Exchequer-bill of 100%., which is in the gencies, such as the breaking out of a war,
nature of an acceptance to a bill of ex- by which they would lose the premium. It
change, and the engagement which the did not follow, therefore, that at whatever
government thus comes under, is, no time these bills should be paid off, and
doubt, one to pay 1007.; let the 1007. be under whatever circumstances, the pre-
paid, says the hon. member, and the en- mium must be paid back; but whatever
gagement is discharged. But there may was the real bargain, and understanding
be an implied engagement, as well as a between the parties, must be fulfilled, and
written engagement, which it is equally no more.
necessary to discharge. What is the ori-
ginal inducement and consideration which
the holder of an Exchequer-bill had to
advance his money to government upon it.
Doubtless to make interest of his money.
Suppose then the government to issue an
Exchequer-bill of the nature of an accept
ance to a bill of exchange for 1001., bear-
ing interest after the rate of three per cent
per annum, (which is the present interest
on Exchequer-bills) and to find a person
willing to pay down 1037. of money for
that bill. If the government at the end of
a twelvemonth pays this bill off, interest
included, for 1037. and no more, what
advantage has the holder of the bill had?
He has lost his year's interest. The govern-
ment has had his money for a year and
paid nothing for it. The government has
a right so to act, says the hon. member for
Dover, and therefore ought so to act. I am
sure he did not see the real nature of the
case. He (Mr. Attwood) would not say it
would be direct fraud on the creditor; but
it would be very sharp practice. It would
be fulfilling its engagement on the part of
government in a manner very different
from that in which it is plain the creditor,
at least, must have understood the original
bargain. The creditor would be careful
that he was not so taken in again. No
more money of his would go to such
debtor on such a contract. It was fit for
the government to act with fairness and
liberality to the creditors who held Exche-
quer-bills, and was their policy; and he
highly approved the fair, open, and liberal
course which government had adopted. It
could not be doubted, but that when the
holders of these bills took the bills and
paid 1037. for each 100%, bearing three

a

Mr. Hume said, it was clear from this statement, that the government was ashamed of the transaction, when a broker was thus sent into the market. In fact, the object was effected by means of a fraud.[“No, no."] Why, was it not a fraud when persons did not know with whom they were dealing? Was it not of some importance to know whether you were purchasing a bond from Mr. Rothschild, or from the Finance minister? In point of fact, the more they heard of the transac tion, the more objectionable it appeared to be.

The resolution was agreed to, without a division.

Mr. Hume said, he wished to ask the chancellor of the Exchequer a question of great importance. He wanted to know! whether there was or was not any money in the Treasury? Because he had heard that bills had been drawn on the public Treasury from Paris at eight months. Since the navy bills were put an end to, he was not aware that such long dates were ad mitted,

Mr. Hume said, he had seen bills drawn in September 1828, and payable in May this year. Surely it was not right to have our credit thus disgraced, and our paper thus hawked through the market at dis

count.

The other resolutions were agreed to.

SILK TRADE BILL.] Mr. V. Fitzgerald moved the third reading of the above bill. Mr. E. Davenport, Mr. Fyler, alderman Waithman, and Mr. Robinson, expressed their unabated hostility to the bill, but declared that they would offer no further opposition, as they saw that it would be fruitless. Mr. V. Fitzgerald complimented the hon. gentleman who was the chief opponent of the measure (Mr. Fyler), on the ability as well as good temper which he had shown throughout the whole of these discussions. The bill was then read the third time and passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 11.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, I trusted it would meet with due considerahe did not know what the hon. member tion from their lordships. Indeed, in the alluded to. course of the last session, their lordships had passed a bill which he had introduced, similar in principle, and differing in but few points from the present; and if it were not for an objection on the score of privilege, raised to that bill by the House of Commons, it would have passed both Houses, and have now been the law of the land. He understood from those who had advocated this bill in the other House, that its progress had been delayed, as they were unwilling to send it up while their lordships' attention was almost exclusively occupied with the important measure then before them; and that circumstance ac counted for the lateness of the period at which this bill came under their lordships" notice. He was well aware that it was difficult to attract attention to matters of this description; but he would say, that there was no question which interested more the comforts and happiness of the people of this country, and which was therefore more deserving of their lordships? attention. It was upon such grounds that he advocated this measure, and called for their lordships' assent to this bill. He SALE OF GAME BILL.] Lord Wharn- would entreat of them to look at the state cliffe rose, to move the second reading of of the country under the existing law upon this bill. The noble lord commenced by this subject, and he was confident they observing, that he had often felt it his would at once acknowledge, that that law duty to draw the attention of their lord- called loudly for that alteration and reform, ships to this important subject; but last the necessity of which he had been press session he had introduced a bill on this ing upon the legislature year after year. subject, and the circumstances which had Let them but look at the state of the occurred since that period only tended to country. They had endeavoured by law confirm him in his opinion, as to the abso- to prevent poaching and the Sale of Game; lute necessity which existed for some mea- but what was the consequence? That sure of this description. Ever since 1816, their laws had been broken through,-that this question had been, in some shape or every body set them at defiance, that all other, every year brought under discus- descriptions of game were sold openly and sion in the other House of parliament, and constantly in the market; and, in defiance various bills on the subject had been sent of the law, the crime of poaching, instead up for their lordships' approval. The last of decreasing, had increased to a most bill which had been under consideration in alarming extent. He held in his hand a the House of Commons was now before document which fully bore him out in that their lordships. It had been carefully dis- position. He had, a few weeks since, cussed in the other House, and it had been moved for a return of the number of per sent up from thence without one dissen- sons committed for trial at the last Lent tient voice. That fact sufficiently demon-assizes all over the country for the crime strated, that if there existed any opposition to the principle of the bill in the other House, it was too weak to show itself. This bill, therefore, came before their lordships with the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons pronounced in its favour; and, under such circumstances, he

of poaching. At the last assizes, there were two hundred and fourteen persons committed for trial; of that number, twenty-nine being indicted capitally for offences arising out of conflicts at night, shooting gamekeepers, wounding them, &c. were convicted and received sentence

of death; forty were transported for four-course of the last winter; and what else teen years; twenty for seven years; and could be expected, when such encourage upon the remainder minor punishments ment was held out to the commission of were inflicted. Would any man say, that the offence? They had all heard of the such a state of things did not call for a horrible murders which had been comremedy? The laws were openly set at mitted in Edinburgh, with the view of defiance, and the wealthy portion of the providing bodies for anatomical purposes; population encouraged the violation of the and unless it had been fully proved, he law by purchasing game. And were their never could have supposed that any perlordships to stand still and not endeavour sons, for the small sum of money which to apply a remedy to the case? He knew could be procured for subjects, would have it would be said, that they should wait to been incited to put their fellow-creatures to see the effect of the law under which these death. How was it now proposed to legispersons had been sentenced, and which he late to prevent the recurrence of such had originally introduced for the purpose horrible crimes? Why, a measure was of preventing night poaching. Previous introduced for the purpose of facilitating to that bill, the law did not lack of seve- the supply of bodies for dissection, and by rity; but that bill was passed with a view removing the temptation it was proposed to render the law more effectual, for the to prevent the commission of the crime. purpose of preventing night-poaching. Yet It was upon this principle that the present that act had quite failed, and for this bill was founded. Let them legalize the simple reason,-that the poachers were Sale of Game, and see what would be the tempted to set the laws at defiance, by the effect of doing so. In the evidence given support which they received from the pur- before the committee, they had ample teschase of game by the wealthy classes of timony, that until that was done, no law society. While they received such encou- would prevent the increase of poaching. ragement the crime of poaching must They had the evidence of the poulterer to increase. Poachers would continue to set that effect. It might be said, that he was the laws at defiance, notwithstanding the an interested party. That might be very punishment inflicted upon their offence, as true; but it did not lessen the weight of long as a premium was held out to them to the evidence of the poulterer, that the law do so. It was to prevent the increase of would continue to be evaded, as long as that crime that this bill was intended; and the market was legally shut against the it proposed to accomplish that object by Sale of Game. But they had also the legalizing the Sale of Game, and lessening evidence of the poacher, that his trade the temptation held out to the poacher. It would continue to increase, unless they might be asked, whether this bill would legalized the Sale of Game. They had the accomplish that end. He did not pretend evidence of the poulterer on the one hand, to prophesy as to its effects. He only who sold the game, and the evidence of proposed by this bill to legislate in a way the poacher on the other, who supplied it, which had been followed in other instances to that effect; and all experience demonby parliament for the prevention of crimes strated, that unless they removed the somewhat analogous to that of poaching. temptation, the commission of the crime How did parliament deal with the crime of would continue to increase. He would smuggling, with a view to its prevention? not say that the extraordinary increase of They reduced the duties, and thus took this crime, during the last few years, was away the temptation to commit the offence. merely owing to the temptation held out He proposed to deal with the poacher in a to the poacher under the existing law,→ similar manner. He would legalize the he would not deny but other circumstances! Sale of Game; he would have them go into had a share in producing that increase; the market and endeavour to meet the but he had no hesitation in saying, that poacher, and by that means lessen the the increase of the crime was, in a great temptation to the commission of the degree, attributable to the steps which paroffence, by diminishing the amount of the liament had taken to suppress it. The reward which the poacher calculated upon act for preventing the setting of spring receiving. Since the last bill had been guns in woods had, in some degree, conbefore parliament, the crime of poaching tributed to that increase. He was one of had greatly increased. They had had the individuals who, on the passing of that dreadful instances of its increase in the act, though approving of its principle, ex

pressed his fears that such effects would result from it. They must go back to the law as it stood before the passing of that act, or adopt the present measure. He proposed this bill for the purpose of preventing the necessity of recurring to such a measure as that. If he were asked, whether he would rather have a law allowing the setting of spring-guns in woods, than have the present lawless violence carried on, he had no hesitation in saying that he would prefer the former. He would now advert to the objections urged against this bill. The first objection regarded the qualification as to property required by this bill, to give a person the privilege of shooting game. He had entertained a great objection to the raising of the qualification as to landed property higher than it was constituted by this bill; but he should give up that objection, and he would be satisfied if he could get the qualification fixed as nearly as possible to that amount. He would not object-so anxious was he to carry this measure-to an increase in the amount of qualification to any reasonable extent. The fact was, that most of the objections which were urged to the measure on this score, aroseed to take out a license from the magis from the circumstance of noble lords not being aware of the state of the law at present on the subject. If he possessed a quantity of land, and had sons who might wish to amuse themselves by shooting upon it, they would be all liable, as the law stood at present, to a certain penalty every day they went out upon his land, though he was the only person interested in preserving the game there. As the law stood at present, the illustrious duke on the cross bench (Cumberland) could not avail himself of the amusement of shooting, without subjecting himself to a penalty; and the first time that he should go out to enjoy that sport, any one could inform against him, and make him pay the penalty for so doing. Should such a state of things be suffered to exist? Whenever the illustrious duke paid a visit to his royal brother at Bushy-park, he could not, as the law stood, go out to shoot there; and neither could any Irish or Scotch peer, who might happen to be there, partake in the amusement, without incurring a penalty under the existing law. Was not this state of things absurd and childish? Why should any individual be prevented from shooting, when the proprietor of the land invited him to do so? The son of

the illustrious duke might, as the law stood, enjoy the amusement of shooting; but should any misfortune happen to the noble duke, and his son come to occupy his place, he would then be deprived of the privilege of shooting game. Now, he proposed to do away with this absurd system, and he would say at once, that the landowner should be entitled to give leave to any person he should think proper, to shoot upon his property. The noble lord proceeded to detail the inconvenience caused by the existence of manorial rights and privileges in regard to the shooting of game: these regulations, he contended, were not suited for the present day; they had been adopted by our ancestors in the times of feudalism, when the barons looked upon every man who possessed land, but was not on the same footing with themselves, as a villain. The law, therefore, in that respect should be altered to suit the peculiar circumstances of the times. He would propose that every individual who possessed a certain amount of property should have the right of shooting upon it; and he would have the persons who should sell game in the market oblig→

trates to enable them to do so. These were the principles of the bill; and he would now proceed to notice the objec tions. The first objection was, that he was interfering with the rights of lords of manors. But at present, though they could prevent the owner of land from preserving game, they could not go on the land. If they did, they committed a trespass under the present law. But, if he took from them this nominal right, he conferred on them an absolute right over the game on their land, and a right of qualifying other persons. On the balance, the lords of manors would be gainers. The next objection was on the score of the small landowners. He knew there was a great jealousy on the part of gentlemen of large property, to allow their tenants to shoot. He was ready to limit this qualification to a considerable amount, or he was ready to extend it; but his great object was to give as many persons as possible an interest in preserving game; which would cause it to be preserved at less trouble and expense. But there was one class of objectors, whose opposition he feared more than any other, and that was the fox-hunters, who were apprehen sive that the effect of this bill would be