1790. ] 
BRITISH PARLIAMENT. 
N the 25th of April, a debate took 
place in’the houfe of commons, on the 
dog-tax bill. It was oppofed by Mr. Sne- 
ridan and Mr. Courteney; and thote 
gentlemen did not confine themfelves to fe- 
rious argument, but difplayed much wit 
_and humour upon the fubjeét. Mr. She- 
ridan remarked, that he not only abhorred 
the bill for its inhumanity, but alfo con- 
fidered it as ill-timed ; becaufe it was pro- 
duced at a time, when a part ot the canine 
fpecies was co-operating with the com- 
bined powers, by maintaining, with unpa-' 
rallelled ferocity, the caufe of religion and 
humanity. In fhort, ic was fhewing fuch 
ingratitude to our allies, as could never be 
juftified. The fame day it was refolved, 
that the Weftminfter police bill thould 
continue in force only five years. 
On the 26th, a motion was made, in the 
houfe of peers, that the houle fhould go 
into acommittee on the debtor and cre- 
ditor’s bill, which had beea brought in by 
the earl of Moira. After fome debate, the 
motion was carried in the negative, and the 
bill rejeéted. The fame day, the royal 
affent was given, by commifiion, to the bill 
for granting duties on legacies of perfonal 
eftates in collateral fuccefiion ; the bill for 
making the port of Scarborough, in the 
ifland of Tobago, a free port ; and feveral 
private bills. : 
‘On the 28th, was a debate relative to the 
war in the Weft Indies, in confequence of 
a motion which had been made for fome 
papers concerning it. On this occafion, 
Mr. Dundas made a fpeech of confiderable 
length, in which he entered into a detail 
of circumftances, in order to fhew, as he 
faid, that, in the whole conduét of the 
Wek Indian war, nonegleét wasimputable 
tothe executive government. He was an- 
{wered by Mr. Sheridan; and Mr. Grey 
faid, that he was authorifed to {tate to the 
houfe, that it was Sir Charles Grey’s de- 
fire, that the whole correfpondence and 
proceedings relative to his expedition, might 
come before the pub:ic. Several motions 
were then made for the produétion of pa- 
pers, fome of which were granted, and 
others refufed. 
On the 29th, a debate took place, ona 
bill, which had been brought in, for the re- 
peal of the exifting game laws. Sir H. 
Penton oppofed the biil, contending, thar 
the laws refpeéting game in this country 
were analagous to the laws which pre- 
vailed in Germany, and in other countries ; 
and that the farmers had no abfolute right 
#o deftroy the game, as gentlemen, in let- 
Britifh Parliament. 
327 
ting out their lands, thought proper to re- 
ferve that for their own amufement. This, 
he alfo faid, was ferviceable to the country, 
as it afforded attraétions for their living a 
confiderable time among their tenants. 
Mr. Fox fooke in favour of the bill; and 
obferved, that the cuftoms in Germany, 
and other places, had not, in his opinion, 
any analogy whatever to the fituation of a 
Jand-owner in this country. In places 
upon the continent, and particularly in 
France, before the revolution, the landed 
proprietors had the power of aéting at their 
will, upon their own eftates. In England 
it was far different, becaufe the immediate 
occupier of land, though he could not kill 
game himfelf, had the power of warning 
off any privileged gentleman, or even the 
lord of the manor himfelf ; and in thofe 
places where this liberty was exercifed, the 
game was better preferved, than in the 
other counties of the kingdom. 
Mr. Pitt faid, that he thought it ex- 
tremely proper to give the farmer, or 
poffeffor of land, the privilege of killing 
game; but he did fo merely on the prin- 
ciple of giving them an intereft in its pre- 
fervation from the poacher. As to any 
right, which the farmer might be fuppofed 
to have in the light of property, he could 
never admit it. Property was merely the 
creature of the law, which gave him a ti- 
tleto cultivate lands for his own emolument 
and livelrhood, but did ner, at the fametime, 
acknowledge his right to thofe animals, 
which, in all countries, and under all laws, 
were deemed ferg nature, and which the 
proprietor of the foi! thought proper to re- 
ferve for his own fport. He had great ob- 
jections to a claufe in the bill, for allowing 
pame to be fold at public markets ; and 
fhould, therefore, vote in favour of poft- 
poning the bill for three months. 
Mr, Sheridan profefled himfelf to be 
always an enemy tothe fyfiem of the game 
laws, which he confidered as unjult, un- 
equal, oppreffive, and tyrannical. It was 
time, he faid, that game fhould now become 
property, as property had for a long time 
been the game of thé law. Property was 
certainly, as defined by Mr. Pitt, the erea- 
ture of the law; but laws were to very 
little purpofe, if they did not proteé that 
which they were enaéted to fecure ; and 
yet, under the prefent fyftem, a farmer 
muft allow the depredations of hares, and 
other animals, upon his corn and his nur- 
feries, with impunity, for which he could 
take away the life of cne of his fellow- 
creatures. He could not commend any 
regulation, by which the proprietor of the 
foil was obliged to feed and nourifh ani- 
y mals, 
