The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-05-01 00:00:00

SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1875.

THE EXPORT OF HORSES.

On the readmission of the Reporters, Mr. Chaplin then
rose to move his Resolution, and commenced by some
severe reflections on the unwarrantable and discour-
teous interference of Mr. Biggar, who seemed to for-
get that he had been admitted to the society of gentle-
men. His Resolution, lie explained, did not refer to the
Turf, which, on the whole, was in a tolerably satisfactory
condition, though there were many things in it which re-
quired removal. He claimed, farthernwre, that it had
oone much to improve the breed of horses. Nor
did his Motion refer to thorough-bred stock, as to
which no complaint could be made. But with
regard to the ordinary breed of horses, he main-
tained that there was a great falling off in the number and
a deterioration in the quality. To prove this he referred
to the evidence given before the Lords' Committee, and
to the impossibility of obtaining horses at the old prices.
Oar markets were swept by the foreigners, who were
ready to give any prices, and our farmers' had almost
ceased to breed because of the impossibility of pro-
cured sound stallions. After he had described the means
taken by the German, Austrian, French, and Italian
Governments to keep up their breed of horses, Mr.
Chaplin disclaimed altogether the idea of Govern-
ment haras, or of stopping the exportation of horses. But
he suggested that prizes should be given at the agricultural
meetings, that Government should provide stallions, and
that a tax should be imposed on all stallions which were un-
sound. The Resolution with which Mr. Chaplin concluded
expressed apprehension at the continued exportation of our
best stock, and directed the attention of the Government to
the national importance of taking steps to arrest the deteriora-
tion of the stock which remains.
Colonel Kingscote, in seconding the Motion, attributed
the falling off in breeding to the superior profits of beef and
mutton, and recommended that the money spent on Queen's
Plates, should be employed in giving prizes.

Mr. Sturt, in a racy and humorous speech, which afforded
the House much amusement, moved the Previous Question.
He was all for competition, and gave a hearty welcome to
the illustrious foreigner, deprecating with uplifted arms the
Interference of the Government. If the Goyernuttnt bought
a single hair of a single tail of a single horse, we should be in
for a regular Government haras. He disputed altogether Mr.
Chapha's premissea As to deterioration, he showed, in an
interesting review of the development of the Arabian blood
in our stock, that the average height of a stallion had in-
creased from 13 hands in 1700 to 16 hands in the present
year. So also he showed that the number of horses in the
country had considerably increased. As to the remedies
suggested, the people were too sensible of the blessings of
Free Trade to permit any return to Protectionist principles.
In the case of an emergency .he would undertake that
100,000 horses would be forthcoming. If English gentlemen
would do their duty as private breeders, England would
always retain her old and admitted superiority.

NIL A. Brown supported the Previous Question, maintain-
ing that the ordinary law of supply and demand should not
be disturbed.

Mr. Disraeli expressed a hope that the House would not be
called on to tlivide. It was not for him to decide on which
side the victory rested in the passage of arms to which the
House had just listened, for the Government was chiefly
interested in the matter from a military point of view,
and the Cavalry mounting, he understood, was perfectly
satisfactory. Moreover, the returns showed the number
of horses in the country had increased. Mr. Chaplin's
remedies, he argued, were not adequate to the evil which he
depicted. This was not a matter, Mr. Disraeli remarked,
which should be left to the initiative of the Government.
Why should the Government keep stallions more than bulls?
The Government did not produce the Short-horns nor the
Southdowns, and these improvements must be trusted to
the judgment, enterprise, and experience of private gentle-
men like Mr. Chaplin. The landed gentry of England, he
hoped, would see that it was their duty to do something
more for the country than to breed mere racehorses.
Sir H. Johnstone agreed with the Prime Minister, but it
would not pay. a country gentleman to breed except from
public motives. If the Government would hand over the
Queen's Plates to the Lord Lieutenants of Counties unre-
servedly, they would hear no more demands for assistance.
Mr. Conolly and Mr. Greene supported the Motion, Mr.
Maitland cited statistics to show that the supply of horses
was falling off, and Colonel Barttelot was proceeding to make
some remarks on the subject, when the House was counted
out al ten minutes to nine o'clock.

CRIMINAL APPEALS IN SCOTLAND.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 28, Dr. Cameron moved
the second reading of the High Court of Justiciary (Scot-
land) Bill, the object of which was, he said, to extend the
time for lodging appeals in criminal cases to the High Court
of Justiciary, and to extend the ground of such appeals.
..The hon. gentleman gave cases showing, he argued, that the
existing law worked with some oppression, and showed that
In certain instances if a magistrate gave a sentence of fifteen
days' imprisonment he practically secured himself against all
danger of appeal on the part of the prisoner.
Mr. Mackintosh seconded the motion, and remarked that
from what he had seen of the Bill of the Lord Advocate on
the same subject it would not remedy many of the
grievances complained of.

Mr. Montgomerie recommended that the question shciuld
be left in the hands of the Lord Advocate, who could deal
with it in his Bill on the subject, and moved the rejection of
the measure.
After some observations from Sir G. Campbell,

The Lord Advocate said the Bill he had brought in would
not deal with the two questions, but in the course of the dis-
cussion on it those points could be introduced and debated.
He therefore suggested that the Bill be withdrawn.
After some discussion by Sir E. Colebroke, Mr. Leith, Mn
Ramsay, Mr. 181.`Laren, and Mr. Montgomery, in course o
which several hon. members suggested that the Bill should
be read a second time pro forma and committee deferred
until the Bill of the Lord Advocate had been discussed, the
amendment was withdrawn, and the Bill read a second time

SHERIFFS' COURTS, SCOTLAND.
Mr. Anderson moved the second reading of the Sheriffs
Courts (Scotland) Bill, which proposed to extend the juris-
diction of those courts to heritable property, and save
suitors going to Edinburgh. He was satisfied with the Lord
Advocate's Bill, but hesitated to withdraw his own, for the
former should not become law this session.
The Lord Advocate appealed to the hon member to with-
draw the Bill as he had brought in a measure to deal with.
the subject.
Mr. Anderson consented to take that course, and the Bill
was withdrawn.