The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-05-12 00:00:00

SPRING TRAPS.

Sir A. Gordon asked the Secretary of State for the Home
Department whether Herpi ajesty's Government would move
Parliament to restore in Scotland the liberty to protect crops
from injury by allowing the use of spring traps in rabbit
runs; a liberty the people of that country had enjoyed prior
to the passing of the Ground Game Act of 1880, but of
which, under a recent decision of the Court of Sessions as
to the meaning of that Act, they were now deprived, while
in England and Ireland there was no such deprivation.

Sir W. Harcourt said that from the latter part of the
question his hon. friend appeared to be under some mis-
apprehension. ills hon. friend said that the Act of 1880
took away a right previously enjoyed. In one sense
that wad true, but scarcely in the sense understood by his
hon. friend. The Act did not take away from tenant
farmers privileges which then existed, but during the
progress of the Act through the House of Commons it was
represented to him that it persons were allowed to set
spring-traps in the open they would kill a great many
animals besides rabbits. It being a cruel practice (hear,
hear), he was wining to limit the use of spring-traps, not
only by tenant-farmers, but by everyone else. Accord-
ingly, a clause was inserted by which no one was to be
allowed to set spring-traps in the open, simply because it
was a cruel practice, and resulted in killing a great many
animals which it was not desirable or necessary to kill.
In England there was but little occasion for the operation
of the clause. There were many other ways of killing
rabbits than by spring-traps. (Hear, hear.) With regard
to the recent decision in Scotland, referred to by his hon.
friend, he understood that his right hon. and learned friend
the Lord-Advocate contemplated introducing a measure to
remove the difficulties which had arisen in consequence of
that decision. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. J. Coiling; having obtained leave under the new
procedure rule, moved the adjournment of the House, in
order to complain of the sale of the foreshore at Southport
to private landowners. After a discussion, prolonged for
several hours, the motion was withdrawn. - •

INDIAN EXPENDITURE.
Mr. E. Stanhope called attention to the increased expendi-
ture of India, which, he showed, had within the last three
years advanced to the extent of three millions per annum, and
moved a resolution declaring it to be necessary that early
steps should be taken to reduce the expenditure. Unless
some steps in this direction were taken without delay, he
feared that a crisis in the finances of India must inevitably
occur before long, with probably disastrous results.
The motion having been seconded by Mr. Reid,

Mr. J. K. Cross explained in detail the causes of the
increase of expenditure, and contended that the Govern-
ment had exercised all due regard for economy, consistently
with a policy of promoting the health and material
prosperity of the people. Admitting that there were some
items of expenditure which appeared to be excessive, and
which he should be glad to see reduced, he declined to
accept the motion, but moved an amendment that every
effort should be made to effect economy in the expenditure
of the Government of India.

The debate was continued by Lord George Hamilton,
Mr. Pugh, Mr. Onslow, and Mr. O'Donnell, and even-
tually the amendment of Mr. Cross was negatived without
a division.

Some other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
burned at five minutes to two o'clock.