130] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



second time, it passed in the 

 affirmative by Ayes, 116; Noes, 

 21 : Majority, 95. 



In the House of Lords, on 

 June 2nd, this bill being read a 

 second time, the Earl of Carnar- 

 von moved for its being com- 

 mitted. The sole object, he said, 

 was, to place the buyer and the 

 seller of game upon the same 

 footing. If there existed any 

 principle of law more cruel and^ 

 unfair than another, it surely was 

 that which punished the poor, 

 and acquitted the rich, when 

 equally criminal. The state of 

 the game laws was altogether ob- 

 jectionable ; but, bad as the 

 system was, it became their lord- 

 ships duty to do what they could 

 to improve it. The question, 

 however, was of a practical 

 nature, and merely consisted of 

 the comparison between the poor 

 man and the rich man. 



The Earl of Lauderdale spoke 

 warmly against the bill, which he 

 supposed would unite all persons 

 acquainted with the state of the 

 gaols throughout the country, to 

 oppose it. After speaking a con- 

 siderable time on this idea, his 

 lordship said, that at this period 

 of the session it was impossible to 

 go into the general consideration 

 of so important a question as that 

 of game laws ; he thought the bill 

 ought to be withdrawn, in order 

 that the subject might hereafter 

 be taken up on more enlarged 

 principles. 



Earl Grosvcnor and Lord 

 Holland spoke in favour of the bill. 



The Lord Chancellor said it 

 was impossible for him to give 

 his assent to it as it now stood ; 

 and >he instanced the inequality 



that was still left in the act 

 between the rich and the poor. 



The House at length divided ; 

 Contents, 33 ; Not Contents, 9 : 

 Majority, 24. 



The House then went into the 

 committee. 



On the 3rd of June, when the 

 tliird reading of the Game bill was 

 proposed, the Earl of Eimerick 

 moved an amendment to the 

 effect, that for the first offence 

 the person convicted of violating 

 the statute should be committed 

 to the house of correction for 

 three months, and for any sub- 

 sequent offence for four months, 

 without bail or main prize. 



The Earl of Carnarvon, though 

 agreeing in many points with the 

 noble earl, could not assent- to 

 the proposed amendment. 



The amendment was negatived. 



The bill was then read a third 

 time, and passed. 



On May 19th the Lord Chan- 

 cellor presented a bill for varying 

 and amending certain of the pro- 

 visions of the Regency act. By 

 that act, his lordship said, a 

 council was appointed to assist 

 her majesty in the execution of 

 the trust reposed in her with 

 regard to the care of the king's 

 person, some of whom, in the 

 absence of her majesty, were to 

 reside at Windsor. Several of 

 the members of the queen's 

 council having official duties to 

 execute, it was impossible for 

 them to reside at Windsor ; and 

 it being thought advisable that 

 her majesty, in the present state 

 of her health, should continue in 

 town, it became necessary to 

 make provision for the appoint- 

 ment of additional members of 



her 



