Lords Sitting of 20 May 1845

MINUTES.
Sat First.—Lord Keane, after the Death of his Father: Lord Mont Eagle, after the Death of his Father.
BILLS. Public.—Received the Royal Assent.—Exchequer Bills.
2a. Huddersfield Waterworks; Southampton Docks; Stoke-upon-Trent Market; Lord Monson (or Countess Brooke and of Warwick's) Estate; Scarborough Water.
Reported.—Devonport Gas; Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas; Edinburgh Life Assurance Company; Middlesex County Rates; Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company.
3a. and passed:—Clerkenwell Improvement; Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas Light Company.
Received the Royal Assent.—Liverpool Docks; Bradford Gas; Surrey and Sussex Roads; Glasgow and Shotts' Road; Calvert's Estate; Foulmire Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Chester, Duke

587
of Montrose, Earls of Haddington, Fitzwilliam, and Zetland, Marquess of Breadalbane, and Lords Kenyon, Roseberry, Hatherton, and Kinnaird, from Islandnagee, and a great number of other places, against Increase of Grant to Maynooth College.—From Free Church of Orkney (Scotland), and Inhabitants of Firth, against the running of Railway Trains on the Sabbath.—By the Marquess of Normanby, from Churchwardens of Wokingham, for Inquiry relative to the dilapidated Condition of their Church.—From Haddington, and Dunse, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—By Lord Campbell, from Dunfermline, and Cupar, for Alteration of Game Laws.—From Wells and Wedmore, for the better Regulation of Beer Houses, especially on the Sabbath.—From Clergy and others of Runcorn, for Alteration of Sale of Beer Act.—From Clergy and others of Wells, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—From Meltham and several other places, for the Suppression of Intemperance.—By the Marquess of Normanby, from John Thomas Perceval, of Kensington, for the adoption of Measures for the better Regulation of Lunatic Asylums.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Landowners and others of Hartington, and numerous other places, for Protection to Agriculture.—Erom Kidwelly and Greenwich, in favour of the Establishment of Local Courts.—From Mathew Phillips, Civil Engineer and Surveyor, for Inquiry into Distress, and for Relief of Working Classes.

THE CHURCH AT WOKINGHAM.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he had a petition to present which he was desirous to bring before their Lordships while some of the right rev. Prelates remained, as it was connected with the question of the present spiritual destitution of a parish which was not far from London. The circumstances of the case had already been mentioned in the public prints. The petition was from the churchwardens of Wokingham, a parish in Berkshire. The petitioners called the attention of the House to the necessity of some remedy being devised to meet the circumstances of their case. He (Lord Normanby) thought he could put their Lordships in possession of the facts of the case in a few words, and in a smaller compass than if he were to read the petition at length. This parish of Wokingham was the peculiar jurisdiction of the Dean of Salisbury. It was a parish, he understood, of upwards of 4,000 inhabitants, and contained upwards of 8,000 acres. The Dean of Salisbury was rector, patron, and also ordinary. The tithes were commuted for 1,698 l. a year; they had been leased for many years on leases for lives, renewable by fines. The fine received by the Dean of Salisbury the last time there was a vacancy in the lives, was 2,200 l. The annual rent of the tithes was 26 l. 13 s. 4d. Of the 2,200 l. the Dean had appropriated 200 l. for the benefit of the minister, by subscribing that sum to Queen Anne's bounty. What the parishioners complained of was, that from the circumstances of the rector and ordinary being the same individual, there had been
588
no efficient visitation for some time. The petitioners went on to state, that in 1843, their attention was called by the rural Dean to the circumstance that the church was in want of repairs. They accordingly consulted a very eminent architect, Mr. Cotterell, and afterwards Mr. Good, the Surveyor to the Church Commissioners, who confirmed the report of the architect that the church was in a very dilapidated state. Mr. Jacob, the lessee, was then asked what he would do with respect to the repairs of the chancel. He said, he believed, it would be found that the chancel was not in so dilapidated a condition as had been represented. However, Mr. Jacob at length agreed to the terms proposed by the petitioners, on behalf of the vestry; but soon afterwards they received a communication from him to the effect that he did not believe that the chancel was in the same state of dilapidation as the rest of the church; and he warned them to touch it at their peril in making the repairs of the rest of the church. This led to much correspondence, with which he (Lord Normanby) would not trouble their Lordships; he would only say that he did not think that the parties had adopted that tone in their correspondence which was altogether suitable; and he thought that the latter gentleman did not recollect that those persons who moved in this matter were persons not having a personal interest in the affair, but desiring to do that for the parish which it was their duty to do. After this correspondence had been brought to a close, the churchwardens determined to summon another vestry meeting; but before doing so, they took the opinion of a learned civilian, Dr. Addams. The noble Lord then said, that Dr. Addams had been obliged to acknowledge that he could not suggest any legal remedy. The petitioners went on to state, that they actually had certificates of the state of the chancel from tradesmen who had been employed to make trifling repairs a few years ago—that if the adjoining part of the church was touched the chancel would fall. Dr. Addams also said, he thought that if the parish assented to a rate for the repair of the chancel, the churchwardens would be justified in laying a rate for that purpose; and he concluded by expressing his sincere regret that jealousies and animosities in any quarter should have prevented the proper repairs from being performed. Perhaps, the opinion of the learned civilian went rather out of the strict bounds of a legal opinion; but, after

589
all the facts of the case had been laid before him, that was the conclusion to which he had come, and the opinion was deserving of credit accordingly. Subsequently the Dean of Salisbury had corresponded with the lessee, Mr. Jacob; but the whole thing stopped short by the lessee absolutely refusing to do anything more than what would keep the chancel in its present state. With respect to the correspondence of the churchwardens with the Dean of Salisbury, they had used a word with respect to the Dean of Salisbury which, in his opinion, had better have been omitted, when they said that "the Dean's continued distrust that the chancel was out of repair was disingenuous." On the other hand, there were passages in a letter from the Dean of Salisbury which appeared in the public prints some days ago, that he (Lord Normanby) very much regretted should have been used. The passage stood thus:—
"But in writing to the Dean to inform him of these facts, they asserted that the chancel was in as dilapidated a state as the body of the church. This, his lessee denied; and, though the churchwardens have repeated the assertion in their petition, I have to state that Mr. Money, an eminent surveyor of Donington, near Newbury, having carefully examined the chancel, reports that it is substantially in repair, and that an outlay of about 40 l. would render it perfectly so."
Now, very few persons reading that statement could have failed to come to the conclusion that the petitioners had made such assertions without having the means of proving them. But those means they had in their hands, and that proof they had sent to the Dean of Salisbury, and he was consequently aware of it. The petition prayed for an alteration of the law in two respects. First, it prayed that the ordinary and the rector should not be the same person; and, secondly, it prayed that the visitation should be actual and personal. That certainly appeared to him to be a very anomalous state of things which prevented these parties from carrying out their intention of repairing the church, because the same party stood in the position of being the ordinary, the patron, and the rector.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

GAME LAWS.
Lord Campbellsaid, he had the honour to be entrusted with petitions from the Dunfermline district and the Kirkaldy district of Cupar, in refer-
590
ence to the Game Laws; and he felt it his duty very shortly to state to their Lordships the grievances of which the petitioners complained. He was not going to enter into any general history of the Game Laws; but on a subject of such importance, he thought it desirable that their Lordships should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion. The first grievance which the petitioners complained of with respect to the Game Laws was, that they were most oppressive to the tenant farmers. In that respect he could not agree with the petitioners. He thought that this was not in the slightest degree a question between landlord and tenant. So far the question was settled by contract; the lease provided for the rights over the game which the landlord was to enjoy, and it was the fault of the tenant himself if he did not stipulate for the protection which he thought necessary for the proper cultivation of his farm. It appeared to him that there had been a great deal of delusion and unfounded clamour on that subject. It had been said, that the system which now prevailed in Great Britain was very much the same as that which prevailed in France before the Revolution; but he could not at all admit that such was the case. If they were to sweep away all Game Laws, the same system as regarded landlord and tenant might still continue. The landlord might still say that he would not let his farm unless his game were allowed to feed unmolested; and the tenant might say that he would not take it unless compensation were given to him for the injury committed. With respect to the second grievance complained of, namely, the injury done to the community by the Game Laws, he thought the petitioners had reason on their side. When so many convictions for poaching, so many encounters between poachers and gamekeepers, and so many murders had taken place, it must be allowed that the serious attention of the Government should be directed to the determining whether some amendment in the law could not be devised. This was a growing evil. In the year 1811, there were 3,000 game convictions; the annual number now very nearly reached 5,000. From 1833 to 1843, there were 42 instances of homicide in encounters between poachers and gamekeepers; of these there were 25 convictions for murder. All must admit, therefore, that the evil was of the most alarming nature. He did not wish to see any system introduced which would interfere with the fair

591
enjoyment of field sports. He would be one of the last persons so far to libel the gentry as to affirm that they ware attached to their country seats for mere hunting and shooting. He did not think so. He believed that they employed themselves in educating the people, and in exercising acts of hospitality; and, at the same time, he must say that it was but fair, when they were doing so much good, that they should enjoy field sports as their ancestors had done before them. What remedy should be provided, it was not for him to suggest; but certainly something should be done either to prevent poaching or to remove the temptation to it; and if law could not do a great deal, much, he believed, might be done by kindness and good feeling. He did hope that some noble Lord who was more conversant with the subject than himself would take up the subject. He would press it on the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. But he had also a noble Lord in his eye (Lord Dacre) who, in another House, had distinguished himself by the manner in which he had dealt with this matter, and to whose exertions they were indebted for the Bill of 1831; and he would be very glad to leave the matter in the hands of that noble Lord. It had been hoped that poaching would be prevented by allowing the sale of game; but that hope had been disappointed: it was now absolutely necessary that some remedy should be devised.
Lord Dacreobserved, that in 1816 he had moved for a Committee, in the other House of Parliament, to inquire into the condition and general character of the Game Laws. The result of the inquiry was, amongst other things, the establishment of the doctrine that the property in the game was in the owner of the soil—ratione soli; for so soon as the animal was off the soil the property was no longer in the original owner, unless followed by what was called a recent pursuit. He had brought in a Bill on this subject, which was carried through Committee, but which was defeated on the Report, owing to the strong feeling which then existed against any legislation upon the subject; and he was proud to say that it was the groundwork and basis of the Bill which they were at present anxious to amend, the Bill of the 1st and 2nd William IV. He concurred in most, if not in all, that was stated by his noble Friend (Lord Campbell) as to the evils which might justly be attributed to the Game Laws as they at
592
present existed. He hoped something would be done to mitigate the mischiefs which the country, and more especially the agricultural population, were now experiencing. But it was impossible to check poaching so long as the sympathies of the people were not marching along with them. So soon as they impressed upon the public at large the real motive and character of property in game, he was sure their recognition of it would be readily obtained. He had at the present moment a Bill in reference to the matter actually prepared, and which had for some time been prepared, and which it was his intention to place before their Lordships. There was, however, a Committee at present sitting in the other House of Parliament; and, as a matter of courtesy, and, he might say, of decency, on his part, he had hesitated to force forward his own Bill until he knew the line and the decision of that Committee—until he knew whether they meant to report at all upon the subject before them, and what would be their Report, and whether their Report would be followed by legislative proceedings. Whenever he obtained any knowledge of the proceedings of that Committee, he would, if he then thought it proper so to do, be ready to lay the Bill which he had prepared upon their Lordships' Table. He hoped to be able to come to an early decision on the subject.
Lord Hathertonregarded the alterations of 1831 as very valuable in their character and tendency. They removed much that was exclusive and odious in the system of the Game Laws; but much remained still to be done. He was sorry that his noble Friend who last addressed the House had not thrown out some suggestions as to the best mode of dealing with the subject; for from his noble Friend's long attention to this subject, any suggestions thrown out by him would have been listened to with a degree of attention to which their value would have entitled them. Great mischiefs would be prevented, if those who possessed game would forego some of their privileges by repealing the enactments which made hares game. Nineteen out of every twenty convictions arising from the Game Laws were had for snaring hares. The injustice of the monstrous extent to which the preservation of hares was carried, in many cases was so great, that he was sure their Lordships would not hesitate to admit that it was extremely desirable that, by some legislative measure, an end should

593
be put to it. If hares were put upon the same footing as rabbits were on, retaining the Game Laws with respect to pheasants and partridges, there was no doubt but that a considerable destruction of them would take place in many districts, in which they could not be preserved to the extent to which they now were. If a man possessed a few acres of wood, and chose to preserve hares upon them, he might do so for his amusement under the present system, not at his own expense, but at the expense of his poorer neighbours, and might commit them to jail if they destroyed any of them. By putting hares upon a different footing, this state of things would be altered for the better.
The Earl of Stradbrokeentirely agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord who introduced this subject, when he said that the complaint did not lie between landlord and tenant. Nothing could be more correct than to say, that the tenant, on hiring a farm, had the power of making certain arrangements with his landlord in reference to the game upon his farm. He differed from his noble Friend who spoke last upon the subject of hares. It was perfectly true that there were more convictions arising from the snaring of hares than from any other cause connected with the Game Laws; but this circumstance arose simply from the fact that hares were much more easily taken than any other species of game. With regard to the murders which had taken place, they might have been avoided if proper directions had been given to gamekeepers.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

MAYNOOTH.
Earl Fitzwilliampresented a petition from a congregation of Protestant Dissenters, against the grant to Maynooth. The noble Earl said, that the petition related to what was called, or rather miscalled, to a certain degree, the endowment of the College of Maynooth. It prayed against the proposed endowment, upon what might be considered the dissenting ground of objection—the ground that the State should not interfere in favour, not merely of the Roman Catholic Establishment, but of any Establishment whatever. The petition might be regarded as praying against the maintenance of the Anglican Establishment as well as against Maynooth. He entirely dissented from the whole scope and view of the petition, both with respect to its being hostile to
594
what was proposed to be done in favour of the College of Maynooth, and also with respect to the spirit which animated the petitioners against Ecclesiastical Establishments. The endowment of Maynooth he regarded as but a small instalment of what was due to the people of Ireland. He had great satisfaction in contemplating further measures in relation to academical establishments in Ireland. If Ministers intended to stop with their present measures, they were persons who did not comprehend the results of the measures which they were now proposing; but as they were persons, in his opinion, competent to take an adequate view of the results of those measures, he could not refrain from giving them the credit for intending a great deal more; and he was glad to be able to give them credit for such intentions. With these observations, he would lay the Petition upon the Table.
House adjourned.