just the man to stand in the breach where I came to the conclusion, that if the princidanger was, he hoped he would not throw ple was right, it ought to be extended himself into the breach to defend spring- further. On the meeting of the House he guns. To employ artifice to defeat the had stated, that he would propose the bill, was not what he should expect from very measere which he had moved in the the noble duke. If that noble person now committee; and, if he was not greatly resorted to artifice, when did he learn to mistaken, the noble lord then said he employ it? He could see no traces of it had no objection to it in principle. He in his conduct on other occasions. At wished to deal fairly with the noble lord, all events he must have acquired it since and would tell him, that if the bill were the date of the Convention of Cintra which made applicable to garden grounds, it he had signed at the head of a victorious would be lost; but that was no affair of army. He hoped, however, that the noble his. The fault was theirs who introduced duke would not insist on carrying a clause a measure of such a nature, that when it which would defeat the object of the bill. was proposed to extend the principle, it With regard to the bill he now proposed was found to be so unfair that it could not for a first reading, if it should be agreed be applied beyond an individual case. to by their lordships, it would then become Whenever the measure came to be conhis duty to introduce another, for pro- sidered in the committee, he should insist hibiting the use of spring-guns in gardens. upon its being made applicable to all enAs to the frequent occurrence of accidents closures on this principle, that small by spring-guns, that was a fact which country gentlemen should not be deprived could not be doubted. During the last of the only means they had of protecting week he had received an immense number their game. of letters, the writers of which expressed their astonishment that the noble duke should be ignorant of the mischief done by spring-guns. Three cases had recently come to his knowledge; but he would not at present trouble their lordships with the details. The Duke of Wellington said, he did not rise to defend himself against any insinuations which the noble lord had thrown out respecting transactions in which he had been engaged - insinuations which were perfectly unparliamentary [hear, hear]. He said perfectly unparliamentary, as they had no relation to the subject under the consideration of their lordships, but to his conduct before he was a member of that House. To such insinuations, he would make no reply. But, with regard to the bill in question, he must say, that he did think it contained a very unfair insinuation against country gentlemen, who might wish to preserve their game by spring-guns, rather than by gamekeepers, because the latter mode was not so consistent with their fortune as it might be with that of the noble lord opposite. He thought it was not right for the House to suffer such an insinuation of cruelty against the country gentlemen to pass. That he did intend to oppose the bill when he came down the other day, he would not deny; but, when he heard the statement of legal authorities made by the noble lord on moving the second reading, he reconsidered his opinion, and Lord Suffield hoped their lordships would allow him to vindicate himself against the charge of having done any thing unparliamentary. In the discussion of a public measure, he thought it perfectly fair to urge the argument which he had employed; the tendency of which was to show, that if the noble duke was taking a by-way in order to defeat the present measure, such a course was not to be expected from him, and that an open opposition would be more consistent with his character. As to what the noble duke had said of the necessity of springguns for preserving the game of country gentlemen, that reminded him of his having often heard the same arguments in private; but he must say, that he allowed it little weight. He should be sorry if what he said gave any offence in the quarter he alluded to; but it did appear to him, that country gentlemen not being able to preserve game legally, was no reason for permitting them to preserve it illegally. Lord Malmesbury suggested, that the measure should be confined to prohibiting setting spring-guns, except during the night, and at certain distances from the public road. With these limitations, the bill might be made general. There was some difficulty in knowing where to stop, and how to distinguish between covers, orchards, and gardens. He had never set spring-guns himself, and never would. The Earl of Liverpool observed, that the first bill to which the noble lord had called the attention of the House was that which proposed to make stealing in gardens larceny, and to the motion for reading that bill a first time he had no objection. The noble lord had also given notice of his intention to bring in another bill, to prohibit the setting of spring-guns in gardens. He certainly could not see much reason for shooting a man for stealing fruit, any more than for stealing pheasants, and he was therefore in favour of the prohibition; but he thought that the better way of accomplishing this object would be that suggested by his noble friend; namely, the ingrafting a clause on the other bill, which was to be committed. Earl Grosvenor wished their lordships to consider, as they had all agreed to the principle of the measure, whether it would not be better to pass the bill in the form in which it had been originally introduced, than with the amendment of the noble duke. Those who thought with the noble earl, that the principle of the bill should be extended, might then give their support to the bill for prohibiting spring-guns in gardens, which his noble friend had promised to introduce. He hoped their lordships would not, by adopting the amendment, defeat a measure, the principle of which they universally approved. The Marquis of Salisbury did not see the expediency of having separate bills, when all the points might be incorporated into one enactment. He thought that amendments might be introduced for en abling gardeners to protect their property without endangering the lives of his majesty's subjects. As to the measure proposed by a noble earl for setting springguns only in the night time, he did not consider that it could be attended with the desired effect, for great depredations might be committed in the open day. Lord Suffield, in reference to the debate of a former night, observed, that his course of proceeding had been misunderstood by some noble lords. It was then proposed to extend the principle of the Spring-gun bill to gardens; but to obviate this difficulty in the progress of that bill, he promised to bring in a specific bill for the protection of gardens. This promise, as their lordships now saw by the bill just read a first time, he had endeavoured to perform. He could also lay before their lordships, if necessary, a statement of the law relative to gardens; some of the absurdities of which had been described on a former evening by the learned lord on the woolsack, and also by the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government. He put it to their lordships, whether the bill ought not to be read a first time and then left on the table, as an earnest of that more general system of legislation which was in contemplation. The Duke of Wellington begged to remind the noble lord, that he had opposed neither the second reading of the bill, nor its going into a committee, and as yet he had not heard any opposition to the clauses which he moved to be included in it. The noble lord would find, on investigating the matter, that many accidents had been prevented by these instruments, and much property saved from depredation. If country gentlemen were deprived of the use of them, they must employ more gamekeepers and watchmen to protect their property, which would be attended with greater expense and with a greater loss of life. Lord Ellenborough thought, that if upon any occasion it had been expedient for the House to negative the first reading of a bill, the present was one which seemed more particularly to invite that course. He had no doubt that the loss of human iife would be much greater after the bill should have passed, than it could be under the state of things which existed at present. If their lordships had resolved to legislate against all the accidents by which the lives of men were endangered, there could be no limit to the task they had undertaken. He believed that the number of fatal accidents which happened every year from the careless laying about of loaded guns, without the most remote intention of doing mischief, was far greater than those which happened from spring-guns. He wished, at least, that some exception should be made in favour of such places as were surrounded by continued fences, and which, therefore, could not be entered under any misapprehension, nor indeed with any but a felonious intent. The gardens in the neighbourhood of London principally owed their security to the engines which were set in them; and, whatever might be said in favour of the principle of the bill, he had no doubt that its practical consequence would be, to lay the whole of those gardens in particular open to the depredations of the thieves with which London abounded. The Earl of Lauderdale said, that the subject was one which required the attentive consideration of their lordships, and wished that a general bill should be brought in to embrace the whole of the objects which it was intended to effect by the several measures at present before the House. In order to accomplish this, he would suggest to the noble mover, the propriety of contenting himself with having the bill now read for the first time, and postponing the committee, by which an opportunity would be afforded for the consolidation he recommended. The Lord Chancellor thought that, whatever might be the advantages of the consolidation suggested by the noble lord, they could all be obtained by means of such alterations as might seem necessary in the committee. The law as it stood afforded some protection to the owners of gardens and orchards. By an act, as old as the reign of queen Elizabeth, robbing orchards was made an offence; but, owing to the youth of the persons by whom it was most commonly committed, the provisions of that act were rarely carried into effect. An act of the late king had provided against trespasses committed in gardens, by subjecting the offenders, in the first instance, to a penalty of 40s.; in the second, of 5.; and in the third, to transportation. Still, however, it seemed desirable that the law upon these points should be made more clear and simple; and to effect this an opportunity would now be afforded, if it should be their lord. ships' pleasure to go into the committee. Lord Holland thought, that none of the objections which had been urged should induce the House to refuse the committee. It was acknowledged on all sides, that there were many difficulties in the way, which bis noble friend had endeavoured to remove by the several bills he had now brought and intended to bring in. If it should appear in the committee, that the same object could be gained by a less cumbrous mode of legislation, and that the difficulties could be removed with equal certainty, his noble friend would, he was sure, readily acquiesce in any measure which the committee might be enabled to discover. At all events, their lordships would, by this means, be put in possession of all the points of the subject; and the result would probably be, that some plain and simple enactment would be agreed upon. The bill was then read a first time. After which, the House resolved itself into a committee on the bill brought in on a former occasion. The Earl of Liverpool, in accordance with what had fallen from him on this and a former evening, moved an amendment, in order to render needless one of the bills brought by lord Suffield, by rendering the measure against the setting of spring-guns and steel traps in game preserves, general, and making it illegal to place them in gardens, orchards, and nursery-grounds, for the protection of property. Lord Elienborough contended, that gardens, orchards, and nursery-grounds, ought to be excepted from the operation of the bill, inasmuch as the owners of property in them had no other means of protecting it, but by destructive engines of this sort, set rather in terrorem, than with the intention to inflict bodily injury. Earl Grosvenor wished the bill to continue in its original shape. If it were altered as proposed, he feared it would not pass the other House of parliament. Lord Holland was of opinion, that the owners of gardens, orchards, and nurserygrounds, were entitled to some protection. If it were not given them by making steal. ing in them larceny, he thought that within walls, or where the fences were sufficient, they ought to be allowed to set springguns and steel-traps. The Earl of Harrowby supported the amendment for making the law general, and not applicable merely to game preserves. The Earl of Liverpool added, that his reason for making the law general was clear. Steel-traps and spring-guns endangering life, were not a proper protection for property, and therefore he wished that their use in all situations should be discontinued. The committee then divided on the earl of Liverpool's amendment. For the amendment 28; Against it 5; Majority 23. It was accordingly carried. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, March 15. METROPOLITAN FISH COMPANY BILL.] Several petitions were presented against this bill. Mr. Calcraft rose, to explain an inaccuracy into which he had fallen upon a former evening when speaking of this company. There were in fact three fish companies, whose objects were nearly similar, and in endeavouring to detect the real Simon Pure, he had happened to take up the wrong prospectus. The mistake, however, which related to the connection which he imagined to exist between this company and the Dutch fisheries was immaterial, and did not at all affect his argument against it. The effect of this and every similar company was, to take the bread out of the mouths of industrious individuals, and it was upon that ground principally that he opposed it. The public would derive no benefit from these companies, as they already procured fish at as cheap a rate as the nature of the commerce would allow. There were many respectable names attached to this company. If lord George Seymour, Mr. Mocatta, and other respectable persons chose to become fishmongers, he could have no possible objection; but he felt a strong objection to their uniting for the purpose of ruining the poor but honest and industrious individuals, with whose means of subsistence the monopoly of such a company would materially interfere. benefit of all the fish that came into the market. Mr. Alderman Wood said, that the effect of this bill would be a monopoly in the sale, and not in the catching of fish. An agent was appointed at a salary of 2,000l. to buy up fish; and it was evident when so much capital was brought into the market, that fish would rise, instead of becoming cheaper. Mr. J. Smith thought that much good would arise from the establishment of this company. Ordered to lie on the table. THAMES QUAY.] Colonel Trench moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for building a Quay and Terrace Carriage Road on the northern shore of the river Thames, from Craven-street, in the Strand, in the city of Westminster, or near thereunto, to Blackfriars Bridge, in the city of London." Mr. Calcraft expressed his unwillingness to take up the time of the House in opposing what many persons imagined to be a splendid improvement upon the banks of the Thames. A sense of duty Sir J. Yorke agreed, that it was extremely iniquitous to interfere with the hard earnings of a class of persons whose calling was honourable, and of great anti-must, however, compel him to do so, quity, as it was followed by the apostles. Sir E. Harvey contended, that the House ought to protect those who were engaged in the fisheries; as they were a fine race of seamen, who would, when occasion required, be useful to our navy. Mr. Curteis denied that the new company interfered with the fisheries at all. They were purchasers of fish, and would, therefore, be useful to those who were engaged in that trade. Mr. Bernal thought the prospectus of the company a mere delusion. Mr. T. Wilson said, that the company had, in his opinion, been subjected to much undeserved obloquy. Those who formed it were most respectable. And what was their object? To give cheap fish to the inhabitants of the nietropolis. Was there any thing reprehensible in such an object; and would it be contended that it was uncalled for? As far as his experience went, the practices of the fishmongers in London were occasionally most nefarious. He had been informed, that it was not unusual, when there was a superabundance of fish, to throw it into the river, in order to prevent tlie price which they had chosen to lay upon it from being lowered. The object of the company was, to counteract this system, by giving to the public the unless it was proved to him that the projected measure was not so destructive of private property as he was led to believe it was. He had been intrusted with a petition from a most respectable nobleman, whose property would be materially injured if the bill passed. This petition stated that the standing orders had not been complied with, as the prospectus detailing the number of feet which it was proposed to elevate the quay, together with the map and usual references, had not been deposited in the proper office. It further stated, that neither the petitioner nor his tenants, whose property was so materially involved in the projected scheme, had been served with the regular notices. These, if true, were strong facts; and of their truth no doubt could be entertained, when it was known that the petitioner was the duke of Norfolk. His property in Arundel-street, and other parts of the Strand, would be materially affected if this measure passed. In some parts the proposed elevation would reach to the first story of some of his tenants' houses in others, above it. Under such circum stances, he thought the noble dake and others concerned were entitled to a fair notice. With respect to the feasibility of the measure, he allowed that it made a very pretty figure upon paper; but, in his cerned, but which he could not but conopinion, it was extremely improbable, if sider one of great utility, of paramount not altogether impossible, that it could be importance, and, indeed, he might add, of ever carried into execution. The sum absolute necessity to this great metrópolis. said to be requisite was at first estimated He owed it as a matter of respect and at from 3 to 400,000l. Now it was stated courtesy to the duke of Norfolk, to say, that no less a sum than 680,000l. would that nothing could be further from his inbe sufficient; and of this sum it was pro- tention than a desire to throw any unneposed to borrow 200,000l., not from indi- cessary obstructions in the way of the viduals, but from the liberality of the noble duke or his tenants. But, in the chancellor of the Exchequer. He had, course which they had been induced to however, too high an opinion of the pru- adopt, the committee had not thought fit dence of that right hon. gentleman to to act upon their own responsibility; they imagine that he would lend himself to a had consulted their legal advisers, and scheme, which was nothing but a system upon their advice they had acted. The of delusion from beginning to end. Tak- object of the proposed measure was not ing the estimate of expense at even the the improvement of streets, but that of highest rate, he contended that the sum the navigation of the river. That the of 680,000l. would be totally insufficient, latter object would be effected, they had because they would not only have to con- the opinion of the lord mayor and common struct buildings, but to buy up the in-council, who, as conservators of the river terest of those whose habitations were to be taken down. The original plan, too, had been abandoned, because the duke of Northumberland and the earl of Liverpool had objected to it, on account of the inconvenience to which they would be subjected if it had been carried into effect. Why then, he would ask, was the duke of Norfolk to submit to an injury from which those other noble persons had contrived to be exempted? In his opinion, neither the duke of Norfolk nor the commonest beggar in the street ought to submit to injustice. This was a measure which could not be carried on without great individual injury; and he should therefore give his decided opposition to the motion. Mr. Hobhouse said, that, when the project of the gallant colonel was first made known to him, he had felt extremely anxious to support it, conceiving, that if carried into effect it would greatly tend to the embellishment of the metropolis. He had since, however, upon consulting with his constituents, found that it could not be accomplished without serious injury to many of them. The mud-dock contemplated would be a great nuisance, and was quite certain to create miasmata. He was therefore bound to oppose the measure; and he did so with the less reluctance, because, upon mature investigation, he could not but see its utter impracticability. Colonel Trench said, he rose with considerable embarrassment to reply to the charges which had been brought against a measure in which he was personally con Thames, had carefully investigated the proposed plan, and expressed their decided approbation of its details, and their conviction that it would tend materially to the improvement of property upon the banks of the river. There were two classes, however, who, from different motives, were hostile to the proposed plan. The first consisted of those who were really apprehensive of injury to their property; and the second of those who, without apprehending any essential injury, raised a hue and cry, in order to enhance the amount of compensation for which they might find it convenient to apply. In no case, however, where property was not injured, was there any necessity for the service of a notice. With respect to the proposed plan, it was the anxious desire of the committee, that every care should be taken to protect private property, Looking at it in an ornamental point of view, nobody he, believed, would deny its importance. The Thames was a noble river, but its quays were a disgrace to the city through which it flowed. What a contrast did the quays of Dublin present! His hon. friend had with justice ridiculed any project whose exclusive object was ornament. But he trusted that he should be able to prove, that this measure was not only ornamental, but eminently useful. Upon this subject he could not refer to a better authority than that of an hon. friend of his, who, lately, in speaking of the proposed plan, and referring to the great increase of population which, within the last few years, had taken place in this country, had observed, that the Strand was the |