cers; by paying them their allowances quarterly, instead of half-yearly.

Lord Palmerston could not say, that there was any objection to the gallant general's suggestion. The matter, however, did not fall under his department.

Sir C. Long said, that, if no difficulty was urged against the change in the Payoffice, there would be no hesitation in acceding to it on his part.

Mr. John Smith wished to draw the attention of the committee to the situation of officers who had received wounds in the service. If they had lost a limb, or received wounds which were considered equivalent to loss of limb, they received a pension proportionate to their rank. Not one word was said in the grant, that it was merely to continue during his majesty's pleasure; and the consequence was, that it was generally understood to continue during life. Now, to his knowledge, several persons who had received severe wounds, had been deprived of such pensions, after receiving them for a considerable time, and had been reduced by such deprivation to a state of great distress. He put it to the committee, whether individuals who had received pensions without any limitation of the time of their continuance, should not be entitled

to hold them for life.

Lord Palmerston said, he had formerly been condemned for the extreme liberality with which these pensions had been administered; and the hon. member for Aberdeen had considered him so prodigal of them, as to say that he would not be satisfied unless they were taken from him. The hon. member for Midhurst, however, was of opinion, that he had been too parsimonious in disposing of them. He left the committee to decide between the two hon. members, and would merely state, that, in granting those pensions, he had always sought to do impartial justice between the public and the officers on whom they were bestowed. The cases in which pensions had been discontinued were but few; and there was not one of them, which had been discontinued, until the army medical board had reported, that the injuries for which the pension had been granted, had ceased to operate to the disadvantage of the individual. If the hon. member would bring any case to him, in which he thought injustice had been committed, by discontinuing the pension, he would examine it impartially, and if injustice were proved, would remedy it.

Mr. Tremayne contended, that the House was losing sight of the principles laid down by the committee of finance in 1821, and complained that no evidence had been offered to prove the necessity of this increase to the army. He wished to know whether any alteration had been made in the system of causing wounded officers to repair to town for examination by the medical board, when there were doubts as to the propriety of continuing their pensions? He asked this question, because an officer, who had a wound open, had been brought up to town for examination, at the expense of one half of his yearly pension.

Lord Palmerston replied, that, in particular cases, officers were sometimes examined, by surgeons in the country; but stated, that it would be impossible to lay down any general rule upon the subject.

The several resolutions were then agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORD S. Monday, March 7.

The

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] Bishop of Exeter presented a petition from the clergy of the diocese of Exeter, against the Roman Catholic Claims. The petition strongly censured the violent language used by the Catholic Association, and deprecated the repeal of laws which formed the security of the church and state.

Lord King observed, that their lordships had now before them one more petition from the clergy, against granting the enjoyment of civil rights to their fellowcountrymen, to the Roman Catholics, How far these reverend gentlemen ought thus to meddle with politics he should not now discuss; but they always appeared eager to take part in them. He was informed that there was a city which had a right reverend mayor, and in which there were very reverend aldermen and well-beneficed burgesses. As these reverend gentlemen bestirred themselves so much to find fault where they had no business, he thought it would be but right to bring them back from where they had gone to where they ought to be.

The Bishop of Exeter did not understand on what ground it was pretended that the clergy should not be allowed the right of petitioning, as well as any other class of his majesty's subjects. Why

should they not be allowed to approach that House, when they addressed it in modest and humble petitions? With respect to the clergymen to whom the noble lord had alluded, as holding magisterial offices, that was a circumstance which nobody more regretted than he did. Such cases did exist in his diocese; but it was not in his power to prevent them.

The Earl of Darnley said, it was remarkable, that no petition had been presented in favour of the bill except such as had come from the clergy; but he would seriously advise those reverend persons to consider well, whether at the present moment there was greater danger from granting than withholding the Catholic claims. He wished they would read what Mr. Burke, the highest authority on this subject, had said. They would then see that it was now too late to oppose the religious liberty of the Catholics. Here the noble lord read a passage from Mr. Burke, showing, that the Roman Catholics already possessed religious liberty, and that the only remaining question was one of civil and political rights.

The Bishop of Exeter said, that a noble lord had quoted a passage from Burke. He would, in return, recommend the noble lord to read the last words of lord Russell. He was sorry he had not brought them down in his pocket.*

Ordered to lie on the table.

SPRING-GUNS.] Lord Suffield moved the order of the day for the Committee on the bill to make the setting of SpringGuns for the protection of Game illegal,

The Duke of Wellington thought the principle on which the bill was brought in, if rightly followed up, would apply to enclosures of all descriptions. If springguns were not to be employed for the preservation of game, he could not see why they should be allowed to be set for the protection of roses and apples. He would object to the bill, unless it was extended to all other property as well as to game. With regard to accidents by spring-guns, he believed very few oc

* "I wish all sincere Protestants may love one another, and not make way for Popery by their animosities. I pray God continue the Protestant religion amongst them, that it may flourish so long as the Sun and Moon endure." Howell's State Trials, Vol. ix. p. 683.

curred; and, from all he had heard and observed on the subject, he was inclined to think, that the two cases alluded to the other day by the noble lord who introduced this bill, were the only cases of the kind which could be adduced. The effect of setting spring-guns had been the prevention of poaching, and not the endangering of human life.

Lord Suffield reminded their lordships, that he had already signified that he had no objection to the introduction of a clause to allow the setting of spring-guns for the protection of property, which it would be felony to invade; but as no such an amendment could be made, except in the committee, he thought it hard that the motion for going into the committee should be opposed. With regard to the number of accidents occasioned by spring-guns, he could assure the noble duke that he was labouring under a great mistake, when he supposed them to be few. He had alluded only to two cases, because they were more immediately within his recollection. One of them in particular was strongly impressed upon his mind by the horror of the circumstances. If this objection continued to be pressed against the bill, he should feel himself called upon to go into details, the recital of which, however, he wished to be spared. As to the principle laid down by the noble duke, he entirely concurred with it. He saw no more reason for protecting cabbages by spring-guns than pheasants. He respected pheasants as well as cabbages, and wished to see them placed on an equal footing.

The Earl of Liverpool concurred in the principle laid down by his noble friend, that in consistency the bill should apply to other property as well as game. He was himself for carrying that principle to its fullest extent. That a man should be allowed to buy a trap to shoot another, in a case in which he could not directly shoot him, was something extremely preposterous. There was another circumstance in which the state of the law was extremely absurd. If a man went into a garden, and took away a basket full of fruit, he was guilty of felony; but if he went over a wall, and took the fruit from the trees, he was then only guilty of a trespass. Now, there was a great number of fruit-gardens in the neighbourhood of London which would be exposed to depredation, if it were not for the terror of spring-guns. The state of the law re

an alteration of the game laws, but was surprised to hear what had fallen from the noble earl, when he recollected what had formerly passed in that House, relative to the sale of game.

The Earl of Carnarvon explained, that on that occasion he had had on his side the vote of the learned lord on the woolsack, who was, like himself, of opinion, that if the seller was to be held criminal, the purchaser ought to be made equally criminal.

The Earl of Darnley, alluding to the subject of spring-guns, threw out as a suggestion, that the legality of setting them should be confined to walled grounds.

The Earl of Falmouth said, that the ground of the opposition to the bill which had been alluded to was, that noble lords who lived at a distance from their estates, wished to have the opportunity of purchasing game.

The Earl of Limerick said, that the real ground was, a dislike that the same punishment should apply to the rich as well as to the poor. The punishment of the pillory was then in existence, and to that punishment the purchaser might have been liable as well as the seller.

Earl Grosvenor, from what had passed, and especially what had been said by the noble lord on the wool-sack, was inclined to hope that the bill coming from the other House, on the sale of game, would experience a better reception than the bill of last year. The property of the gardeners in the neighbourhood of the metropolis ought to be protected, because the fruit which they reared was all the property of those poor people. The case was very different with respect to hares and partridges. He would support the

bill.

The Lord Chancellor said, that with regard to extending the principle of the bill to enclosed grounds, a great deal of difficulty arose from the distinction which the law made between trespass and theft; between the act of pulling a tree out of the ground, and taking away a tree which had been previously pulled. A similar distinction was made with respect to the rivers in which salmon were caught. The law had decided, that as salmon were fere naturæ, the taking them out of the river was only a trespass. He remembered a case of a man who had been prosecuted for stealing salmon out of a river, and acquitted by the jury, on the ground that

his offence only amounted to a trespass. A person, however, caught a salmon, and marked it by inserting a twig through its snout. This salmon was put into the river, and being stolen by the same man, he was tried and found guilty, because the salmon was no longer feræ naturæ, but property. The man, if then living, was in Botany Bay, expiating his offence.

Lord Suffield said, that as it seemed to be the general sense of the House, that the clauses of the bill should be considered in a committee, he moved that it be com mitted pro formâ.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a committee. The chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again on Monday.

UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,

Lord Ellenborough said, he was by no means an advocate for the continuance of the Catholic Association; but, at the same time, he did not wish that it should be put down by a measure imposing new restrictions on the liberty of the subject. He said this, not because the Association had heretofore done harm, but because their future conduct might be calculated to prejudice their cause; and therefore he hoped it would dissolve itself. He felt no regret that it had existed. On the contrary, he considered it matter of congratulation. It had made both Catholics and Protestants think seriously of the evils arising from the existing laws: and it had produced a stronger disposition in the minds of both parties to make mutual sacrifices of their prejudices in order to set their differences at rest, for the attainment of a great national advantage. It was said, that the Association attributed the present tranquillity of Ireland to their exertions. Undoubtedly, they had done some good; but, whatever might have been the effect of their conduct, he considered them as most harshly dealt with. In the first place, they had been condemned unheard. It was said, that they had perverted the course of justice. Was there any proof of that? Certain magistrates might feel themselves uneasy under the eye of a Catholic barrister; and a certain class of persons might entertain strong fears of being prosecuted; but these were not reasons for putting down the Association. He was satisfied that some practical benefit had arisen from