The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-02-20 00:00:00

WILD ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

In the HOUSE OF COMmoNs, Feb. 17, Mr. Barclay, in mov-
ing the second reading of this Bill, said he was not un-
mindful of the views expressed by the Home Secretary last
session on the occasion of a Bill introduced by the hon.
member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) that any measure
dealing with this question must be framed on a wide basis,
must be comprehensive, and must be dealt with by the
Government He admitted the force of the statement,
and now submitted a proposal which he thought was new,
and would be a settlement of the question; and should the
Bill pass second reading he should be glad to leave the
wafter in the hands of the Government, believing that the
settlement of the question would be a benefit to both land-
lords and tenants. He proposed to deal with the question by
abolishing existing legislation, which he considered was in-
capable of amendment, and substituting a simple measure
based on the principle of equitable justice. Every tenant,
he proposed, should have the right to take or pursue any
wild animals on the lands occupied by him, and contracts in
restraint of this right should be held to apply to game only.
There was a provision by which unauthorised persons enter-
ing upon such land should be punished for a trespass. Pro-
visions were made for existing contracts, and for the rights
heretofore enjoyed by landlords to enter on the lands occu-
pied by their tenants.
Mr. Dundas rose to move that the Bill be read a second
time this day six months. He was willing to do anything
that would conduce to the advantage of the Scotch farmers;
but the provisions of this measure appeared to him to be in
many respects unjust and inadequate. The interference
with existing contracts was to too small an extent to be of
any use, and he thought should not be accepted by the
House ; while the other provisions of the Bill were
defective in many respects. One defect in the measure
was that it contained no provision for a close time, though
he was glad to hear the mover of the Bill say that he had
no objection to the introduction of such a term. With re-
spect is poaching he considerea that the Bill made no dif-
ference between the labourer who knocked a rabbit over and
put it in his pocket, and the man who made it his business
to pursue game. He trusted the House would not allow the
nisasure to become law.
M`Lagan seconded the amendment, and condemned
the proposed interference with contract as not satisfactory
either to landlord or tenant. No doubt Parliament had
interfered in other contracts, but they had been women and
children, and if the present Bill were passed, it would have
the effect of putting farmers en a level with women and
children.
After a discussion in which several hon. members took
part, the House divided, when there appeared—for the
second reading, 66 ;against, 178 ; majority, 112. kThe Bill was
therefore rejected.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

-
Sir Thomas Chambers then moved the second reading of
this measure, the object of which is expressed in its title.
The measure, was, he explained, the same as that which had
been before the House on several previous occasions. It was
not a party measure, but a bill relating to a social question.
The religious element had, he considered, been eliminated
altogether from the question by the recent discoveries
of learned Oriental scholars, who now stated that such
marriages Were in conformity with Levitical law.
These marriages were not opposed to the statute law of Eng-
land, for the Act of Henry VIII. set forth that no marriage
should be illegal unless they were between blood relations.
He pointed to the largo number of petitions presented in
favour of the Bill, wlLth he contended should have im-
mense weight with the House, and stated that a large num-
ber of these came from Scotland, a place from whence they
had been used to expect opposition on this matter. So far as
it was possible to test the public feeling, it was in favour of
this Bill not only among the laity, but among the clergy
of the Church of England, of the Roman Catholic Church,
and of the English Dissenting bodies. In several of the
colonies these marriages were legal, and the recent Act in
Germany had sanctioned them. In conclusion, he urged
that if the measure were passsed at all it ought in justice to
be retrospective.
Mr. A. Mills moved the rejection of the bill, and, in
support of his views, pointed out that the bill had been
rejected several times by the Honse. There had, in fact,
been a great deal of exaggeration and "tall talk" as to
the necessity for this measure, for he undertook to say
that the present marriage law of England was in conformity
with the intelligent opinion of nine-tenths of the English
people. If they passed this measure they must go further.
They would by passing it place a sister-in-law in a most in-
vidious position. He would base his opposition on no other
than social and moral grounds, and he expressed his objec-
tions to an agitation which he believed was fostered for the
purpose of obtaining an indemnity for those who had broken
the law.
After a discussion, in which Mr. Serjeant Simon, Mr.
Beresford Hope, Mr. Alderman Cotton, Mr. Macdonald, Mr.
Muntz, Mr. Selwin-Ibbetson, and Mr. Ronayne took part,
the House divided :—For the second reading, 142; against,
1'1; majority, i 9. The bill was therefore rejected.
The other orders were disposed of, and the House ad-
journed.
=74 tare.