516 ~ Letter on Affairs in general. [MAY, 



seized was " more sinned against than sinning.'' The House saw the 

 folly of prosecuting its inquiries further, and dismissed the frightened stock- 

 broker, with a sort of. apology for the needless trouble which it had occa- 

 sioned him. With wings " as swift as meditation, or the thoughts of 

 love," he swept back to the gallery, to wreak his vengeance on the wag- 

 gish reporter, who had pointed him out to the executive authorities of the 

 House; but the reporter, knowing the better part of valour to.be discre- 

 tion, had fled amain, and had left his colleagues to sooth the resentment of 

 the exasperated stranger. Need I say that the reporter was himself the 

 person who uttered the impertinent cry, and that he craftily imputed it to 

 another, in order to ward ofF detection from himself. The trick was 

 " pleasant, but wrong" amusing to the spectator, but no joke to the party 

 upon whom it was played. 



As I am upon the subject of Parliamentary Privileges, I see no rea- 

 son why I should not here allude to a curious breach of them, which came 

 out during the investigation of the East Retford Election Committee, and 

 which has only been noticed in some of our party provincial papers. It 

 appears, that in order to examine into the nature of the expenses incurred 

 by the successful candidates, their bankers were ordered to produce their 

 books, when the first item entered to their account was a sum of 1 .2001. 

 from Earl Fitzwilliam, to be applied towards forwarding their return. 

 Now, there is a standing order of the House, declaring the interference of 

 peers in elections a gross breach of privilege. By what process of logic, 

 then, is it, that, after all the outcry against the corporations of Leicester 

 and Northampton, this liberal grant of Earl Fitzwilliam is not considered 

 an interference in the Election at Retford ? Is it that the meshes of pri- 

 vilege are strong enough to hold the small, but too weak to retain the 

 large flies which are encircled in them ? Or is it, that printers, and pub- 

 lishers, and umbrella-losers are to be punished, because they have no friends, 

 whilst peers are to pass unscathed, because they are provided with 

 many ? 



faciunt hi plura sed illos 



Defendit numerus,junctceque umbone phalanges, 



De nobis post hcec tristis sententia fertur ; 



Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas. 



One Yor-kshire peer reminds me of another ; and that again reminds me 

 that I have to thank your kindness for a copy of Lord Wharncliffe's bill 

 to amend the Game Laws, which is at this moment lying on my table. 

 From the tardy progress which it has hitherto made in the House of Lords, 

 and from the momentous interests which both Houses of Parliament will 

 have to discuss on their re-assembling, I think it most probable that this 

 bill will not be converted into a law during the present session. Neither 

 do I think it of much consequence that it should ; for, so far from its being 

 a consolidation of the present Game Laws, as I was induced, by a pub- 

 lished letter of Mr. Peel, to suppose that it would be, it merely increases 

 their number, without diminishing their intricacy and obscurity. It is 

 true, that it puts an end to the absurd anomalies of the present disquali- 

 fying statutes, and gives the beneficial owner of land the right either to 

 take the game upon it himself, or to authorise any other person to take it 

 for him. So far it is undoubtedly an improvement, for it makes game the 

 property of the small landholder as well as of the large, and gives to both an 

 equal right to dispose of it as they please. How the former restrictions were 

 justified I never could understand. All writers upon ethics agree, that no* 



