Lords Sitting of 24 February 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. Fishery Piers and Harbours (Ireland); Game Laws.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Duke of Richmond, from Noblemen, Gentlemen, and others, of the County of Peebles, and other places, in favour of the Corn Laws.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Clergy, Landowners, and others, of Abbas Coombe, and several other places, for Protection of the Agricultural Interest—By the Duke of Richmond, from Noblemen, Commissioners of Supply, and others, of Forfar, and other places, against the Principles of Free Trade.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Inhabitants of the Township of Sutton on the Forest, for the Adoption of a Measure to prevent the Unconstitutional Proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League.—From Landowners, and others, of the Parish of Somerton, against Real Property Registration Bill. — By Lord Kinnaird, from Incorporation of Weavers, Dyers, and Clothdressers of Canongate, Edinburgh, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn Laws.

THE CASE OF BRYAN SEERY.
THE MARQUESS of WESTMEATHsaid, he must beg the attention of their Lordships for a very few moments in consequence of what appeared on the face of the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons of that morning. It appeared that a question was put by an hon. Gentleman to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State
2
for the Home Department, to know whether any deputation from the county of Westmeath had waited on the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the case of Bryan Seery, who, as their Lordships probably knew, had been lately tried by a Special Commission in the county of Westmeath, where he had been convicted and sentenced to be hung; and the question asked was, whether the deputation had gone up to pray the Lord Lieutenant that the law might take its course? Now, as far as he could put a construction upon the answer of the right hon. the Home Secretary, he stated that a deputation had proceeded from the county of Westmeath for that purpose. This being the case, he thought their Lordships would not be disposed to refuse him the opportunity of expressing his regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have given that answer, because no such deputation had gone up from the county of Westmeath. The noble Marquess was proceeding, when—
The EARL of ST. GERMANSrose to order, and begged to call their Lordships' attention to the inconvenience of the course

3
which the noble Marquess was pursuing in remarking, not on the proceedings of the other House of Parliament, but upon a speech which he said had been delivered there, but respecting which he could know nothing except through the ordinary channels of information, that was to say, the newspapers.
LORD BROUGHAMquite agreed with the noble Earl. But the noble Marquess need not have spoken of what he wished to refer to as having been a speech delivered in the other House of Parliament. All he had to do was to say he had seen it represented that so and so had been stated in another place, and then to have asked whether that was the case or not; or he might have taken it for granted that the statement had been made, and then made his own remarks upon it.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHsaid, it was far from his intention to take any unfair proceeding in that House. It was no object of his to take advantage of the ignorance of any noble Lord as to what had fallen from a Colleague in office; but he thought the noble Earl could tell him whether that answer was given or not. When that answer, as reported, went forth to Ireland, the whole of that side of the press would bear on the magistrates of Westmeath. He should have been bound to have given notice of his question if he had thought that the thing would have kept. He asked whether the Secretary of State had made that answer or not?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Where? In what place?
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH: In the other House of Parliament.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Ah, you cannot ask that question.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, it was plain that the noble Marquess had got his object, for he had given the most positive contradiction to the whole statement, and that without contradiction.

NEWENHAM'S DIVORCE BILL.
LORD BROUGHAMthen said, that he wished to bring before their Lordships a case of hardship for which the law and the Constitution afforded no remedy. Their Lordships would recollect the case of "Wakefield v. Turner;" he had followed exactly the practice that was adopted in their Lordships' House in that case. The petition praying for the Divorce Bill which he was to present to their Lordships was the petition of Jane Wortham, of Stoke
4
Newington, Middlesex, the widow of a Mr. Wortham, who died in 1842. The family were at that time in narrow circumstances, and took lodgers; and Thomas Burton Newenham, a person of forty years of age, or upwards, became an inmate of the house. The widow had a daughter about thirteen years of age. Soon after the death of Mr. Wortham, in 1842, a succession opened to the daughter to a landed estate of 400 l. a year. Newenham laid his plans immediately. He visited at the house where he was no longer a lodger since the improved circumstances of the family. Mrs. Wortham was put off her guard from the disparity of years, and from his having known Miss Wortham since she was a child of eleven years old. The girl, as was represented to him (Lord Brougham), was not of strong understanding. Newenham took an opportunity, about five o'clock one evening, when Mrs. Wortham was out, to state that her mother's affairs rendered it absolutely necessary that Miss Wortham should proceed with him to his solicitor's in Furnival's-inn. Instead of conveying her there, however, he took her to the Euston-square station of the Birmingham Railway, and ultimately to Gretna-green, having effected her seduction, as it appeared, on the road. At Gretna-green the parties were married and came back. Newenham was tried for the abduction at the Central Criminal Court, convicted, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Mrs. Newenham, it appeared, had been since delivered of a child; but the relief asked by this Bill would not bastardize the child, for it would only go to dissolve the marriage. All that he begged of their Lordships was the amplest attention to this case. He did not wish to provoke any discussion, and he therefore merely stated the facts. He wished to refer the whole matter to a Committee of the whole House. This was a case in which the wickedness of one party worked on the innocence and ignorance of another party, so as to destroy that individual's peace of mind, and transfer the whole of her property to himself. In this instance the man had acquired a right to all the woman's personal property without any control. All these grievances she would sustain, if their Lordships could not grant her relief; and therefore he prayed their Lordships to weigh well and maturely the whole bearings of this case.
The LORD CHANCELLORhoped his noble and learned Friend would have the

5
petition printed before it was referred to the Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMconcurred, and was understood to say that he could not lay before the House the whole circumstances of the case of Wakefield, as all the inquiry that could be made on the subject was in a great measure useless, in consequence of the Wakefields having bought up the published accounts of the case.
LORD CAMPBELLmust enter his solemn protest against the proposal for dissolving marriages which it was admitted had been celebrated according to the law of Scotland. This was a case where the marriage was clearly in accordance with that law, where the parties had lived as man and wife, where the marriage had been consummated, and there had been issue of that marriage. To talk of dissolving that marriage, and leaving the child legitimate, would be contrary to all principle, and might be attended with most alarming consequences. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord that the law of Scotland was exceedingly defective, and ought to be amended; and he hoped that the learned Judges in Scotland would return to the opinion they held in 1835 on that subject. But while the law remained as it was he held that it must be obeyed; for if they were to allow the dissolution of a marriage which was admitted to be valid, and of which there was issue, there was no saying where such a proceeding might stop, if once adopted.
LORD BROUGHAMthought, if all marriages were to be dissolved which were contracted under the same circumstances which characterized the present case, no great harm would be done. If a robber entered a house and took off a child of fourteen—that robber being a man of forty—and by the grossost fraud contracted a marriage with that child, he did not think the consummation of that marriage anything but a gross aggravation.
Motion agreed to.

REPORT OF THE GAUGE COMMISSION.
LORD KINNAIRDrose to ask the noble President of the Board of Trade the question of which he had given notice, relative to the Report of the Commissioners on the subject of the broad and narrow Gauge. Of all the important questions that were likely to come before Parliament during the present Session, he considered the question of railways as one that demanded the most serious consideration of the Le-
6
gislature. Whether they looked upon them in a commercial point of view, as affording to merchants the means of conveying their goods to distant places more rapidly than before, and thus rendering it unnecessary for them to keep large stocks of goods on hand, while they were enabled to turn over their capital more frequently; whether they looked at them in an agricultural point of view, as tending to equalize prices throughout the country, and facilitating the transfer of the farmer's produce to the most populous districts; or whether they looked at them in a social point of view, as affording the means of travelling to the most remote parts of the country—on all these grounds, he thought the Legislature was bound most seriously to consider the question of railways, and secure at once the convenience and safety of the public. He might also refer, as the Commissioners had done, to the increased means of defence they afforded in reference to military movements; and likewise to the financial considerations which their Lordships must see could not be disassociated from the subject of railways. It was quite evident from what had taken place in the funds lately that this was a point requiring the most careful consideration; he believed that under a proper system of control there was no better security for investment than the railways, because, whilst they were adding to the benefit and the happiness of individuals, they were also the means of adding to the capital and resources of the country. Considering, then, the importance of the subject, he was certain he would stand excused for calling the attention of their Lordships to the question of railways. He hoped the House would yet see it to be its duty to grant permission to make the inquiry whether or not some rule should be adopted for effecting a proper control of railways—he meant, of course, a control in regard to the working of them, and whether there should not be inspectors appointed to see that the respective lines were conducted according to the Acts under which they were framed. They must be aware that several accidents on railways which might have been avoided had occurred from mismanagement; and that these accidents, with their causes, it was the interest of the railway companies to conceal from the public. He had known unfortunate sufferers by these accidents, who stated that there would be little hope of anything being done by the Legislature till a Member of Parliament or two had

7
been killed, and then some protective measure would be taken. He thought also much might be done in the way of facilitating Railway Bills, and at the same time putting an end to undue railway speculation. In regard to the Report of the Commissioners, it appeared that they had taken considerable pains to acquire information. That Report appeared to him to be in favour of the broad gauge, except for the conveyance of merchandize; but he found that, notwithstanding this, they recommended the adoption of the narrow gauge, and that in future all railways should be constructed on the narrow principle. He must say he was surprised at the conclusion to which the Commissioners had come, as it appeared that at high velocities the narrow could not be made so safe as the broad gauge; and he regretted that the Commissioners had not duly considered the possibility of adopting a medium gauge. They seemed to have fallen into an error in thinking that it would be impossible to alter the narrow gauge to a wider one, on account of the tunnels; but he thought that this was quite a mistaken notion. His opinion was, that the whole two thousand miles of narrow gauge which were at present in existence in this country might be altered without any considerable inconvenience, if it were necessary, or without such a great expense as would put that experiment out of the question; and he thought that this was a peculiarly favourable time for effecting the alteration. Upon one or two lines, the rails had been altered without stopping the traffic, and on another, the gauge had already been altered. If it were necessary, in order to carry out the alterations to which he had alluded, money might be advanced for the purpose by Commissioners, and the railways could repay it by a tax for a certain number of years. He would, in conclusion, ask when the evidence on which the Commissioners founded their Report would be laid on the Table of the House; and he was also desirous to know when they might expect to be informed of the determination of the House on the subject?
The EARL of DALHOUSIE, in reply to the question, begged to remind the noble Lord that the Commission for inquiring into the Railway Gauges arose out of a discussion in the other House of Parliament, not so much with reference to the respective gauges, as to the question whether public inconvenience might not arise from
8
the diversity of gauge, and of the necessity of finding some means of getting quit of that diversity. In consequence of that discussion an Address to the Crown was moved, and a Commission was accordingly appointed and directed to inquire whether there were any means of obviating the inconvenience, and whether it was possible to secure an uniformity of gauge. Its Report was now on their Lordships' Table. The Commissioners recommended that the gauge of 4 feet 8½ inches should be that adopted by the Legislature; that all railways in course of construction and to be hereafter constructed, should be in accordance with that gauge; and that endeavours should be made to discover means by which some equitable arrangement could be carried out to bring the broad gauge railways to the uniform standard. These recommendations were of great importance, and would require to be deliberately and calmly considered. They would affect the interests of the public, either for good or for ill, very deeply. An enormous amount of capital was involved in the interests concerned, whether the lines were on the broad or narrow gauge, and therefore great caution would require to be exercised. No effect, indeed, could be given to those recomendations without the sanction of Parliament. The Government had felt that while they had every confidence in the impartiality of the Commissioners, they would not be justified in acting upon the Report without satisfying themselves that the recommendations of the Commissioners were well founded. Knowing the extreme anxiety of Parliament and of the public to ascertain the results of the Commission, the Government had thought it their duty to lay the Report upon the Table; but their Lordships would not expect Government to take any other steps till they and Parliament had an opportunity of examining the evidence on which the Report was founded. Some delay had taken place in the printing of the evidence, in consequence of the pressure of business in the printing offices at the present moment; but he could assure the noble Lord that as soon as possible it would be laid before the House, and that, whenever Her Majesty's Government came to a determination as to what course ought to be taken in reference to this important question, they would lose no time in communicating that determination to their Lordships.
LORD BROUGHAMthought nothing could be more satisfactory than the answer

9
which had just been given, that Government should take time to deliberate on a great practical question, affecting the interests of generations yet unborn as well the present. He hoped time would not only be given to Government and Parliament to consider this question, but also to engineers and scientific men, because it was a mistake to suppose that any others could so well judge of such a question as this.
LORD HATHERTONexpressed his satisfaction at the mode in which the noble President of the Board of Trade had answered the question. Their Lordships must all feel the necessity of great caution and of time being taken to consider fully this matter. They should bear in mind that this Commission was adopted on the recommendation of those who had a direct interest in disparaging the broad gauge; that gauge had been supported by a great mass of evidence, and he had no doubt that had the case been reversed in reference to the extent of the two gauges already laid down in the country, there would have been a decision in favour of the broad gauge. He would impress upon their Lordships the necessity of maintaining the principle of competing lines between all great towns in the kingdom. For example, was it right that the railway communication from London to the great towns of Lancashire, with Staffordshire between, should be in the hands of one company—the London and Birmingham, or of companies amalgamated together? It was impossible the public interest could be secured without due competition. There must be competition; and while so much power was in the hands of one great individual, acquired no doubt by excellent talent and industry, the Government and the Legislature ought to be cautious about these proceedings, and narrowly to watch the Railway Bills presented to Parliament.
EARL GREYobserved, that the Motion for an Address, in consequence of which the Gauge Commission was appointed, was by no means supported exclusively by those who had a strong interest in favour of the narrow gauge, as the noble Lord (Lord Hatherton) supposed. He himself took part in supporting it; but he was at that time in favour of the broad gauge. It was thought, that before railroads were carried further, it was important to have it investigated by competent authority, whether great public inconvenience would not arise from a diversity of gauge, and if so, what
10
measures ought to be taken to guard against the inconvenience. That proposal was made without any preconceived opinion on one side or the other. The Commissioners had very ably discharged their duty, and, as it seemed to him, the report was a very valuable document, and founded only upon public considerations. He would just add, that it was of importance that the decision of the Government and of Parliament should be known as soon as possible.
LORD HATHERTONexplained, that if the Commission was not proposed by parties interested in either gauge, it arose out of a decision of the other House in favour of the broad gauge in a particular case.

FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND) BILL.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, briefly called the attention of the House to the importance of encouraging the fisheries of Ireland, and thereby further developing its resources, and increasing employment. Grants were proposed to be made by Government to the extent of three-fourths of the expense of constructing fishery piers and harbours, where the Board of Works thought the advance advisable; 50,000 l. would be in the first instance appropriated to this object, and if that sum should be found insufficient, he believed they would be disposed to advance more.
LORD MONTEAGLEagreed in the importance of the measure, particularly at that moment, and gave full credit to the Government for the spirit in which this and similar measures were introduced; he hoped they would be received favourably in Ireland, and that private individuals would come forward to second the endeavours of the Government to give immediate employment to the poor. One word, however, with regard to the Board of Public Works. That Board had given great satisfaction to the public; but it owed its success mainly to the spirit, and skill, and unquestionable integrity of his gallant friend, Sir J. Burgoyne. For the last sixteen years, in consequence of the confidence felt in it, the Government and Parliament had cast upon it every duty which they knew no other way of executing. Now, this was over-weighting a good horse. His gallant friend, too, was now no longer connected with the Board; but he (Lord Monteagle) should be sorry to speak in the slightest degree to the disparagement of his very excellent successor, Colonel Jones. Still, steps must be

11
taken to strengthen the Board; and then, what could be more useful than to place at their disposal competent engineers, to direct not only their own works, but subsidiary works, which landed proprietors would be willing to undertake, if they had a little direction and advice?
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, he should be happy to vote for this and any other measures which might come before their Lordships, costly as those measures might be, which might have the effect of giving employment to their fellow-subjects in Ireland, and permanently improving that country. Ireland might, and would, if a sufficient stimulus were given, produce a great deal more than hitherto it had, and, by improving the land, permanent employment would be given to the people. Whatever might be said of their Lordships, they were all of them deeply interested in the welfare of that country.
Bill read 2a.

GAME LAWS BILL.
LORD DACREmoved the Second Reading of a Bill for the further amendment of the laws in England relative to Game. His Lordship observed, that for these thirty years it had been to him a matter of deep interest and regret to perceive the condition in which the lower orders—particularly the agricultural body—had been placed by the mode in which the Game Laws were executed. Thirty years since, however, the absurdities and incongruities were more prominent than at present; an individual who had personal property to the extent of millions was not allowed to possess himself of a head of game except by present, and a man could not appoint a gamekeeper on his own land except in certain cases of manorial right. Absurdities of that kind had been removed, he might take the liberty of saying, subsequently to the Report of the Committee for which he moved, which Committee investigated the law upon the subject, and particularly with reference to the question whether game did not belong to the possessor of the land, ratione soli. The Committee to which he had referred sat in 1816; and, in 1819, he (Lord Dacre) introduced a Bill into the other House founded on the principle that game was the property of the possessor of the land. If the possession of land gave the property in the game taken on the land, and no one but the possessor of the land could sell that game, surely they ought not, by fiscal regulations, to admit a simple li-
12
cense as authority for selling game, without its being accompanied by some other regulation proving the game to have come from the possessor of some land. The object of the present Bill was to cut off, if possible, the poacher from any intercourse with the licensed dealer, and therefore the first clause proposed that it should not be lawful for any person, except a licensed dealer in game, to sell game to any licensed dealer in game, unless such person should be the lord or lessee of a manor or reputed manor, or should be the gamekeeper of such lord or lessee acting on the account and with the written authority of such lord or lessee, or should be the owner or occupier of, say, ten or fifteen acres, as it was not his (Lord Dacre's) wish to require for this purpose any extensive possession of land. The Bill would also require the dealer in game to keep a book, in which he should be required to enter the day and month of the year on which he should purchase any game, together with the number and description of such game, and the name and residence of the person of whom he should so purchase it. This was the principal provision of the Bill, for the purpose of putting an end to the practice of poaching, so injurious to the rural population of the country. Having thus taken means to secure this species of property in the possessor or occupier of the soil, he thought it incumbent to introduce some arrangement to reimburse, as far as possible, any damage done to property by the game belonging to a neighbouring occupier. One of the clauses of the Bill, therefore, contained a provision enabling magistrates at petty sessions to order, on complaint being made, an investigation into the amount of damage done by game to the complainant's property, and to make award of compensation. These were the principal points of the measure, which might more properly be called an amendment of the 1st and 2d William IV. He could not but entertain a sanguine expectation—provided the difficulties which he proposed were interposed between the poacher and the licensed dealer, and provided the remedy which he recommended for giving damages, where injury had been done by the excessive quantity of game should be agreed to—that those enactments would smooth the irritation, and remove much of the practical evil by which the country continued to be injured, little less than it was before the introduction of the 1st and 2d William IV.
LORD CAMOYSobjected strongly to the

13
whole of the Bill. He thought that it would be extremely bad policy to make the Game Laws more restrictive than they were at present. By the present law no person could sell game who had not a certificate; but the Bill of the noble Lord proposed to confine the limits still more, by insisting upon the possession of a certain number of acres. The 7th Clause, relative to reimbursement for damage done by game, he strongly objected to, as calculated to lead to great confusion and acrimony among neighbouring landowners. The 9th Clause of the Bill repealed that portion of the 1st and 2d William IV., which gave half the penalty to informers. That he regarded as a useful part of the existing law, which ought not to be repealed. He, therefore, objected to that clause, and must repeat his opposition to the Bill altogether.
LORD BROUGHAMwould support the second reading, on the ground that the existing law was certainly capable of amendment—an observation which, in his opinion, also applied to the Bill of his noble Friend.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid his object in rising was simply to contradict a statement which he understood had been made with regard to himself—that he had paid large sums of money by way of compensation for damage done by his game. He could only say that he had never paid one single farthing for any such purpose; because, since he had been in the possession of landed property, he had invariably destroyed every hare and rabbit upon it, regarding them as real vermin, which, whilst they prevented the farmer from properly cultivating his land, inflicted at the same time a serious injury upon the landowner, inasmuch as they barked many of his most valuable trees.
LORD HATHERTONsaid, that he also, in consequence of the recommendation of the noble Duke who had just sat down, had commenced the destruction of hares and rabbits, and that he had succeeded almost in exterminating them. He could scarcely exaggerate the satisfaction which had resulted from that course, both to himself and to his tenants.
LORD ASHBURTONrecommended that hares should be taken entirely out of the class of game. If that were done, he thought that they would get rid of all the complaints which were now made against the Game Laws; and he should take the liberty at some future stage of the Bill to submit a clause with that particular
14
object in view. At present he should support the second reading.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.