The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-21 00:00:00

MAYNOOTH.

Lord KENYON presented 28 petitions from places in
Cheshire and Somersetshire, and 5 from places in Munster,
against the grant to Maynooth.
Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from the Dis-
senters in Stafford a!-.!ainst the grant to Maynooth—but stating
that they thought that all tsroperty which had been taken
from their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects should be restored
to them.

OAKING HAM CHURCH.
The Marquis of NORM A NI3Y rose to present the
petition of which he gave notice yesterday. It was
exceedingly lengthy, but as he was fully in pos.
ses•ion of the facts of the case, he would take the
liberty of stating them to the House. The petition
was from the parishioners of °akin,: ham, in Berkshire. It
appeared from the petition that the population of the parish
was upwards of 4.000, and the extent of the parnih 8,100
acres. The Dean of Salisbury was rector, patron, and ordi-
nary of the church. The tithes had been commuted for 1,6001.
a year, and on the last renewal of the lease, the dean
had received the sum of 2,1'001. as the fine. although the an-
nual rental was only made to appear as 261. The curate's
stipend was 1561. a year, of which 40/. came oat of the tithes,
and 261. from Queen Anne's Bounty. Owing to the dean
being ordinary, there had been no visitation for several
years, arid the church had got so much out of repair,
that the parishioners were afraid to attend it. An architect
had been employed to survey the building, who reported
it to be in a state of great dilapidation. A vestry
had been summoned, who were unanimous in address-
ing the ordinary with a request that the repairs
might be effected. The ordinary referred them to the lessee,
Mr. Jacob—that gentleman employed his own surveyor to go
over the building, and he reported that the building was not in
that dangerous position which it was stated to be, and he ac-
cordingly refused to make the repairs. The parishioners upon
this applied to a learned civilian for his opinion upon the case.
His advice was that the parishioners might repair the nave, and
the rector the chancel; that they might levy a rate, with the
convent of the parishioners, but not without it. They again made
a representation to the dean, and on further inquiry, it turned
out that the lessee was bound not to restore the chancel, but to
keep it in its present state. The worst. part of the business
was, that a letter lately appeared from the Dean in the pub-
lic papers, from which any one would suppose that only a partial
statement of the case had been laid before him, while he
was in possession of the whole of the facts. The parishioners
were prevented from repairing the nave, because from ano-
ther survey of their architect it appeared that if they
repaired one part of the building the probability was
that the whole would come to the ground. The
case was simply this, was it right that 4,000 persons
should be deprived of the power of repairing the chinch by a
rate levied by themselves, and placed in that anomalous posi-
tion, too, by one who was, in his own person, ordinary, patron,
arid rector. He would conclude by moving that the petition
do lie upon the table.

The Earl of H ADDINGTON presented a petition against
the Maynooth Bill.

THE GAME-LAWS.

Lord CAMPBELL presented several petitions from Dun-
fermline, Cupar, and Kirkaldy, in the county of Fife, against
the game-laws. The petitioners stated certain grievances in
the operation of those laws of which they complained. The
first grievance set forth was the injury inflicted by
those laws on the tenant farmers. This, however,
he looked upon as a matter of contract between land-
lords and tenants, and if the latter did not take
care to protect themselves from the ravages of game by the
provisions of their leases, it was their own fault. A great deal
had been said against the landlords on this head. They- had
been,aceused of great injustice, and likened to the nobles of
France before the revolution. In his opinion, there was not
the slightest pretence for such a charge. The tenants
had the power of protecting themselves if they
would. With regard to -the second grievance, he must
say the petitioners had reason on their side. It was the state
of the law with regard to poaching and the killing of game.
The country suffered very much from the crime of poaching,
from the conflicts between poachers and keepers, and by the
murders which, in many instances, had resulted from those con-
flicts. In 1811 there were 3,000 game convictions. The present
year they amounted to nearly 5,000. During the years from
1834 to 1844 there had been 42 instances of homicide from
conflicts between poachers and gamekeepers, and 25 convictions
for murder during the same time. The evils arising from
these laws were not only the individual suffering inflicted upon
the violators of the law, but the ill-feeling that was created be-
tween rich and pnor, between the members of the aristocracy
and the community at large. He should not like to see any
alteration of the law that would interfere with the field sports
of the gentlemen of this country, but he hoped they would be
limited in such a manner as would do away with the existing
evils of the system. He hoped that if the Government did not
take up the question, that a Noble Lord present (Lord Dacre)
would take it up, and introduce a measure to do away with the
grievances of which the petitioners complained.
Lord DACRE said, that as he had been so pointedly alluded
to by the Noble Lord who had just sat down, he would say a few
words on the subject to which their Lordships' attention had
been called.—( flear, hear.) True it was that he
had moved for a Committee to inquire into
the nature and general character of the game laws, and that in
the year 1831 he had been successful in effecting certain altera-
tions and modifications of them. It would not, however, be
proper in him to allude further to the subject at present. He
saw with regret the evils to which the Noble Lord (Campbell)
so eloquently referred, and he sympathised with every feeling
which the Noble Lord expressed in respect to them. It was
impossible, however, to put down poaching as long as they had
not the sympathies of the people along with them. He had a
Bill actually prepared in reference to the game laws, but as
there was a Committee at present sitting on the subject in an-
other House, he, as a matter of delicacy, deferred bringing
forward his measure till he knew what decision they would come
to on the subject, or what would be the result of their labours.
Under these circumstances, he would not at present say more
on the matter.

Lord HA T HERTON never approved of the present system
of the game-laws. He thought that the alterations introduced
by the Noble Lord who had just sat down were a very great
improvement. But, nevertheless, a great deal still remained
to be done. The injustice which still existed was so great as
to render it extremely desirable that a measure should be
brought forward to suppress it. With respect, for instance, to the
preservation of hares he considered that something should be
done. It was, in his estimation, a monstrous and unjust act,
and he could never reconcile his mind to Ruch a pernicious
portion of the game-laws. The whole evil consisted in the
excessive preservation of hares, and entertaining as he did this
decided opinion, he had thought it his duty at least to point
out the anomaly to their Lordships, trusting that others more
competent than himself would adopt and carry out his sugges-
tions. —(Hear, hear.)

Lord STR /iDI3ROKE, while agreeing with much that was
urged in opposition to the game-laws, considering that nothing
was more correct than some of the arguments advanced by the
petitioners, dissented from the observations which fell from the
Noble Lord who preceded him, in reference to the preservation
of hares. It was his firm belief that the stringency of the laws
in that particular arose chiefly from the difficulty in preserving
them ; and he could not conceive how an enactment whose
tenor was to protect the interests of one branch of the com-
munity, without the slightest injury to any other, should be
deemed either pernicious or unjust. He regretted the circum-
stance mentioned by his Noble Friend, that thirty-five murders,
within ten years, had been committed, arising out of collisions
between the destroyers and defenders of game. He could only
say that, while being himself a strict preserver of game, on no
one occasion had any serious affray occurred on his estate ; and
he could not admit that any alteration such as the Noble Lord
opposite (Lord Hatherton) had suggested was either neces-
sary or advisable. .