great inducement to country gentlemen to reside on their estates would be taken

away.

Sir Joseph Yorke said, that though he was not a killer of game, he was an eater of that nice article, but since the bill of an hon. member (Mr. G. Bankes) had passed, he had never been able to get a second course. He hoped, whatever bill the noble lord brought in, there would be a clause in it to provide, that when an humble individual like himself was about to give a dinner, and said to his wife, "My dear, let us have some game," he might not be met with the unpleasant difficulty, "where shall we get it?"

Mr. G. Bankes was glad his bill had been so effectual. If that bill destroyed poaching, it would destroy the nest from which great part of the evil of the country originated. He objected to a committee which would take up the time of the House without adding any thing to its information. As the subject was not new, the noble lord might at once move for leave to bring in a bill. As to the game laws themselves, no one could deny, that a great number of persons were at present in prison on account of them, and nothing would be more easy than to put an end to this, by abolishing those laws. But this might be said of any other law. They all latented the number of punishments for forgery. Nothing was more easy than to put an end to the laws against it. But what then became of the property of the country? So they might abolish the game laws, but what then became of the game of the country? The general permission to shoot would only make the country people ten times more vicious and indolent: in six months the game would be destroyed, and the better classes of people would be left without their amusement, which attached them to the country.

Colonel Wood said, he was the unfortunate individual who moved for the committee of 1810. When he had got into that committee, they would agree to nothing that he proposed. He had proposed to the committee to examine to what extent the evil of poaching had gone, and to consider a remedy. This the committee refused, and said they would take for granted there was a great deal of evil from poaching. So that after much discussion the only resolution the committee came to was this "That it is the opinion of this committee that game

should be the property of the person on whose ground it is found:" and so they reported. As for the remark of his hon. friend, that no one in London could get a second course, he could only say that his hon. friend was not so much in the confidence of the poulterers as he was. If his hon. friend would give a social dinner, he would undertake to buy game for him. It was of importance that the committee should be appointed, for he was confident that poaching was carried on to as great an extent as ever it was. The poulterers were forced to encourage it, even against their own will. What they said was, "cut off the supply altogether, or let it be legalised." As to the remedy two courses were open. Either they might return to the state in which they were till the latter end of George 2nd, when the sale of game was legal, the rest of the laws remaining the same; or they might (to which he was more inclined) make game the property of the occupier of the land. He recommended also a revision of the law as to qualifications, which was now enforced only against the poor. The certificate might be raised to 51. and all qualifications taken away. He was anxious the country gentlemen should have every inducement to reside on their estates, but it was their interest to consider the question with liberality, and to put down an evil which filled our gaols with peasantry, and laid the foundation of so many crimes.

Mr. Douglas opposed the motion. To legalize the sale of game would, he observed, be, in effect, to enable persons to buy licenses for the disposal of stolen purchases.

Sir C. Burrell thought, that at a time when the country gentlemen were labouring under so many privations, it was too much to propose to take from them the only solace they had left. With regard to the main question of the game laws, he was convinced that it would be a bad plan to separate the game from the poperty of the country. In this point he was supported by the late Mr. Fox, who, after having maturely examined the subject, had come to the same conclusion.

Mr. Lockhart thought that a committee ought not to be appointed, unless the specific defect in the law were clearly pointed out, and the remedy stated. The proposition of the noble lord, he was convinced, would not produce the slightest improvement in the morals of the country.

If game were to be made property, it must be under the civil law, and then the effect would be, to bring a host of pettyfogging lawyers all over the country, disputing about every head of game. To get rid of one evil, therefore, they were called on to create another of a much worse nature. He begged of the House also to consider what a restriction it would be upon the citizens all over the country, in taking the diversion of shooting, who although they might be permitted to follow the sport on the grounds of those they dealt with, would not dare to cross a hedge after game.

Mr. Bennet, of Wiltshire, thought the game laws required revision. Few persons stole sheep who did not first begin by poaching. If game was put upon the same footing as other property it would be the interest of the occupiers of the land to preserve it; it was now their interest to destroy it. It might be then sold so cheap that it would not be worth the poachers while to sell game.

Mr. Coke jun. thought the effect of making game property, would be, to render country gentlemen odious in the eyes of the nation, by giving them a mercenary sordid character, in converting that which had hitherto been regarded as an exclusive source of amusement into a means of lucre. He did not stand up as the defender of the game laws, but he was convinced it was impossible to put a stop to poaching by any laws that could be devised; and the present laws were so fitted and fashioned to their end by the operation of time, that any attempt at alteration would be more likely to defeat the object than to promote it.

Mr. Warre neither wished to spoil the amusements of the country gentleman, nor to remove the inducement which he now had to reside on his estate; but he believed the present laws to be the source of much crime, and should therefore vote for their revision.

Lord Lowther spoke against the motion, conceiving its object to be two-fold, namely, to legalize the sale of game, and to prevent poaching. He must protest against the former, as it would serve rather to promote than to prevent poaching. Mr. Harbord, convinced as he was, that great moral evil resulted from the present system, was inclined to support a measure which might tend to correct it. Much stress had been laid upon the argument that the present game laws presented

a strong inducement to landed proprietors to reside upon their own estates. If the only amusement which gentlemen could find in the country was that of shooting pheasants, he thought the country would not lose much by their absence.

The House divided: Ayes 52. Noes, 86. Majority against the motion 34.

AGRICULTURAL HORSES TAX.] Mr. Curwen rose to bring forward his promised motion for the repeal of the tax upon Horses employed in Agriculture. Against this proposition, he felt that the same objections could not apply, which were urged upon the measure of his hon. friend the member for Essex, with regard to the repeal of the malt tax. For the tax to which his motion would refer, operated in a most unequal manner, pressing most severely upon those who had to cultivate the waste land, while it was, to a certain extent, oppressive upon all farmers, especially of the smaller class. There was, indeed, scarcely a farmer who had not reason to complain of the operation of this tax; for what farmer could conscientiously swear that he never used any of his agricultural horses for any other purpose than farming? and if he did no so swear, the horse otherwise used was charged as a saddle-horse. There was this material difference between the malt tax, and that to which he referred, that while it was maintained, that the repeal of the former would confer no benefit on the agriculturist or the consumer, no such argument could be used in the present case, as the repeal of the agricultural horse tax would be an immediate boon to the farmers. The present tax too, was in amount much less than that of the malt tax; and therefore it could be the more easily dispensed with. This tax was, indeed, so exceptionable, that he was surprised at its original enactment. But the unequal operation of it was peculiarly to be deprecated. For instance, if a farmer had four horses, three were charged at 17s. each as agricultural horses, and the fourth was set down as a saddle horse at 20s., although such horse had never a saddle upon his back or any thing more in that shape than a whisp of straw; in addition to which 10s. 6d. was charged for a groom. Hence it appeared, that if a farmer possessed 50 acres of land, with four horses, he was subject to a tax of above 57. a-year for his horses and supposed groom. He trusted that such a case

an improvement, continued the use of it, and 12 months having elapsed before the judgment was pronounced, he had to pay the year's tax as well as the surcharge. It was the duty of the chancellor of the exchequer to look to a case of this nature. But, he called upon the right hon. gentleman to turn his attention to the several taxes which pressed upon the necessaries of life, and bore down the labouring classes. It would be not only a measure of benevolence, but of wisdom, to repeal all those taxes, and, in lieu thereof, to impose an income tax of 5 per cent. To such a tax no rational objection could be made; for, while it would afford great relief to the labouring classes, it would press only upon the rich, including alike the fundholder and the landholder. If such an income-tax were proposed as a substitute for the malt, the salt, and the leather taxes, with those upon soap and candles, it would, he had no doubt, be hailed as a most auspicious measure by all considerate and candid men. This tax upon income would, too, serve very amply to indemnify the treasury for the repeal of the several duties which he had mentioned. Such a substitute would have another material advantage—that it would save the country from great expense in the collection of the revenue, as well as put an end to that patronage of which he feared that government were always too tenacious. But the mode in which the taxes upon the necessaries of life were collected, had some peculiarities which must strike the House with surprise. Would it be believed that two millions of those taxes were exacted for paupers who had really nothing to pay; that onefourth of their entire annual produce was actually paid upon the necessaries consumed by parish paupers - by those, in deed, who subsisted upon the bounty of others? But how many labourers, who could not subsist upon their present wages, and who therefore were obliged to resort to some parochial aid, were among the contributors to the payment of those taxes? If, then, those taxes were repealed, such persons could subsist upon their wages, and avoid the disgrace of applying for parochial relief. Another circumstance was this that if the land continued to fall off in price, the paupers could not be maintained without resorting to the towns where the manufacturers and mechanics were scarcely in a state to afford my relief without injuring, if not sacrific

ing themselves. But the great object of the legislature, in every view, should be to support agriculture. The manufactories could, notoriously, produce one-third more than any market could be found for. They still, however, could go on well, if their best customers, the agriculturists, were enabled to purchase more of their commodities. The hon. member concluded with moving "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the acts of the 43rd and 52nd Geo. 3, and the 2nd of his present majesty, as imposes certain duties on Agricultural Horses, and other horses employed in leading lime, coal, and other merchandize."

Sir W. W. Wynn supported the motion, because he thought its principle unobjectionable. At the same time, he should have preferred that his hon. friend had postponed it until after the bringing up of the report of the agricultural committee.

Sir C. Burrell, after declaring his concurrence with the principle of the motion, expressed a wish, that it had been postponed until the report of the agricultural committee were brought up. The unequal pressure of the existing tax could not be denied. For instance, where land required lime, which was particularly the case with lands of inferior quality, additional horses must be employed to carry it; for oxen, although they answered the purpose of agriculture in the field, could not carry great weights for any distance upon the roads. Under all the circumstances, he trusted his hon. friend would consent to postpone his motion.

Mr. Davenport expressed his concur. rence with the motion, but wished it to be postponed until after the agricultural committee had made its report.

Mr. Benett, of Wilts, approved of the motion, and saw no necessity for its postponement.

Mr. Curwen said, that if the right hon. gentleman opposite would pledge himself to meet the question at a future period, he would withdraw his motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he wished to know the degree of importance which the agricultural committee would attach to the repeal of this tax. Unless they considered its repeal of great importance to the agricultural interests, he thought no benefit arising from it could equal the inconvenience which would result, in a financial point of view, from the subtraction of so large a sum as 500,000l. a year from the revenue.