The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-03-11 00:00:00

SATURDAY, MAR. 11, 1876.

moved that the duty ought to be reduced at an early date as
a matter of justice and equity.
Colonel Makings seconded the motion.
- -

Mr. Rod well, as an amendment, moved for the appoint-
ment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of
the duty, and espec'.ally in regard to the working of cheap
trains.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked that it would be
unnec,. ssary for him to go into the general question, as he
had made up his mind that the inquiry suggested by Mr.
Rodwell would be opportune and advantageous. Re had
always been struck by the objections to the tax derived
from its effect on cheap trains, arid be should be glad if the
Committee could shitest some re-arrangement of the duty
which would meet this drawback.

Sir E. Watkin advised Serjeant Spinks to divide the laiiue
to ascertain whether the Government was in favour of taxes
on locomotion, while Mr. Fawcett also advised the same
course, hut for tho ditterent reason that he wished to meet
the motion by a direct negative. He declaimed at length
azainst the Railway directors and shareholders who demanded
this remission of the tax in their own interests and not in any
way for the benefit of the public.
Mr. Laing, on the other hand, in supporting the proposal
for a Committee, maintained that the passengers must of
necessity benefit to a large extent by the remission of the
duty, and Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, who took the same line,
asked Mr. Fawcett why he had net opposed the abolition of
other taxes on locomotion.

Mr. Gregory was strongly opposed to the abolition of the
tax. especially in our present financial position, which would
make it necessary to shift the burden to somebody else's
shoulders.

Mr. Hermon, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. M'Laren, Colonel Beres-
ford, and Major Dickson also spoke. The motion was nega-
tived, and Mr. Rodwell's amendment for the appointment of
a Committee thus became a substantive motion. An addition
to this was moved by Mr. Fawcett that the Committee should
inquire what additional accommodation may be demanded
from the Railway Companies as an equivalent for the remis-
sion of the duty. This, being opposed by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, was negatived by 113 to 41, and Mr. Rodwell's
Resolution was carried by 137 to 23.
The Partition Act (1868) Amendment Bill was read a second
time, and the Municipal Officers' Superanuation Bill, being
again opposed by Mr. Fielden, was thrown out on a division
by 88 to 68.

Some other Bills were forwarded a stage, and the House
adjourned at twenty minutes to twelve o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 8, Mr. M‘Lagan moved
the second reading of the Game Laws (Scotland) Bill.
Having reviewed the course of legislation since the year
1845 and described the Bills introduced on the sub-
ject in 1871, which were referred to a select com-
mittee which reported in 1873, he stated that the
measure before the House was founded on the report of
that committee, which had endeavoured to find a com-
mon ground on which game law reformers could meet. The
Bill proceeded on the three principles that the jurisdiction
In the administration of the game laws should be confined to
the sheriffs: that there should be no cumulative punishment;
.1! n easy mode of valuation should be provided. He
prop °assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England
as regartie I not only hares and rabbits, but all game. The
sole rigin of taking and killing game and other wild
-animals tpon any land should; unless the same were
reserved to himself by the lessor, be in the
lessee In the occupation of the land, subject to certain
provisions as to the occupation of the land under a lease
before the passing of the Act. The Bill would require
that where the game is preserved by the landlord, an
agreement at the commencement of the lease for compensation
to the tenant for destruction to crops by over preservation
of game. In cases where a deduction was made from the
rent by reason of the reservation of the game, rates and
taxes should be charged, not upon the reduced rent, but
upon the actual value. So far as the tenantry were con-
cerned, he took hares and rabbits out of the game list. The
law would be unaltered so far as regarded the general public.
Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell seconded the motion, and gave
the measure his warm support. Although there were some
objectionable points in the measure there was nothing that
could not be dealt with in committee. It was a grievance in
Scotland that the amusements of one class should interfere
with the business of another, and he trusted that the Home
Secretary would take up and deal with this question success-
fully, as he had done with many others.
' Lord Macduff opposed the Bill, and considered that the
clauses as to compensation were not likely to recommend
themselves to the farmers of Scotland. He was anxious for
an early settlement of the question, but did not think it
could be effected by the Bill. Any measure to be effectual
, should give a tenant the right to destroy ground game,
leaving a discretion as to winged game to the contracting
parties.
Mr. Orr Ewing, on behalf of the tenant farmers, hoped that
the Bill would be read a second time.
; After some observations from several other hon. members,

! Lord Elcho moved the rejection of the Bill pro forma.
It was not a mere game question, but a Bill dealing with
freedom of contract, though, if the clause relating to that
principle were withdrawn, he would not oppose the Bill.

Sir It. Anstruther, Mr. Greene, and Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson
having also spoken,
Mr. M'Lagan declined to withdraw the clause in question,
and the House divided :—For the second reading 172;
against 150 ; majority 22.
The Bill was then read a second time amid loud cheering
from the Scotch members.

On the motion for the second reading of the Homicide Law
Amendment Bill,

The Attorney-General opposed thermeasure, and con-
tended that instead of simplifying and rendering the law
more intelligible, it would make it more complicated, more
perplexing, and more unintelligible than it was before.
Among other objections he found to it, was that it would
leave the prerogative of mercy in the hands of the jury. Such
a question as this should be dealt with by the Government
and not by a private member. He promised to give the sub-
ject his attention, and if he could see his way clear to deal
with it he would do so.
• - •

Mr. Wheelhouse moved the adjournment of the debate,
which was agreed to.
The other orders were disposed of, and the House ad-
journed.