The Sun.
London, England, 1870-07-21 00:00:00

GAME LAWS ABOLITION.

The debate on the previous question, proposed on the
second reading of this bill, on the 25th May, was resumed
by Mr. M`Lagan, the member for Linlithgowshire. The
hon. gentlemen supported the measure, but while he
maintained that the excessive preservation of game
was caused by the Game Laws, and that game did
damage to crops, he admitted that legitimate sport was
necessary for the health of the community.—Mr. C. S.
Read, the member for South Norfolk, declared that there
was no country, however savage or however republican,
which did not adopt some sort of game law, and he be-
lieved that the game laws which existed in this country
welb not more oppressive, and were not, in fact,
so stringent, as were the laws on the other
side of the Atlantic. He believed that what
the farmers of England and Scotland wanted was that the
over-preservation of hares and rabbits should be pre-
vented, and that such game should be killed at all hours,
day or night, at any season of the year. The hon. member
for Leicester (Mr. Taylor), who had introduced the bill,
had said thal the game laws had demoralised the labourer.
He agreed with the hon. gentleman, but he wished to
dispossess hon. members of the- common idea of a poacher.
The modern poacher was not to be found on the game pre-
serving estates, but in the adjoining village or town where
there was a band of
,lawless, dissolute, drunken black-
guards, who, if they did not poach, would do something
perhaps worse. There was another cause of demoralisa-
tion, and it was this : that the man who occupied a game
farm was invariably a poor half-broken man, who had not
the means at command to constantly employ the labourers,
and therefore there was a lot of young fellows who lived
in enforced idleness, which led to evil courses. In the
next place the game keepers were recruited from
the very lowest class, and reformed poachers.
He believed that if the landlords trusted their
tenants more and the gamekeepers less, and followed
the example of the representative of Dorsetshire there
would be no more complaint from the tenant farmer as to
the injurious operation of the Game Laws. The only
practical solution was this : the law gave the tenant the
right to the game, and he invariably turned it over to his
landlord, but for the general interest it was necessary that
Parliament should prevent the former from entirely
surrendering his rights to the latter ; there
should be a joint right between landlord and occupier for
killing hares and rabbits. Mr. Tillett, the new
member for Norwich, made his maiden speech.
He .attacked the Game Laws, and suggested that
hares and rabbits should be taken out of the scope of the
laws. There was no desire, he contended, on the part of
the farmers to deprive the gentry of proper sport. On
the contrary, they wished their landlords to pass as much
time as they could in the neighbourhood of their estates.
But at the same time sport ought not to be indulged in
to an extent which was ruinous to the tenant farmer. His
opinion was that the game laws demoralised numbers of
the population of the rural districts, and that many of the
graver crimes took their origin in what might be con-
sidered an excusable transgression.—Sir Henry Hoare
strongly condemned the over-preservation of game and
advocated the abolition of the game laws so far as re-
garded hares and rabbits. He had no objection to their
total abolition, but then it would be necessary to render
the trespass law more stringent.—Mr. Herman, the
representative of Preston, thought that when landlords
became almost dealers in poultry the tenant had a right
to complain. He should be glad to see some clause intro-
duced which would have the effect of compensating the
farmers for the breeding and feeding of hares on their
land and he would make it a rule that when
ever any proprietor preserved hares to the enormous
extent they were cultivated in some parts of the
country, he should either leave them as a gift to the
farmer or, if he choose to send them to market, he should
pay 2s. for every hare and 6d. for every rabbit. He
thought this would soon have the effect of bringing down
the preservation of game.—Mr. Anderson declared that
the game laws were in such a muddle that the best way
would be to abolish them altogether.—Mr. M. T. Bass
argued that the bill dealt with property, and remarked
that a large portion of the tenantry of Scotland were de-
pendent upon game. He believed it was no exaggeration to
say that the shooting of Scotland would let at something
like £lOO,OOO a year, and yet no compensation was offered.
It was argued that the welfare of the country demanded
that the ground game should be destroyed, but really if
they were to carry that theory to its natural conclusion,
they should destroy anything which did not contribute to
profitableness. He did not think public opinion was
against a proper game law. On the contrary, he was
persuaded that if they were to poll the tenant farmers,
the majority being protected against an excessive preserva-
tion of game,would vote for the continuance of proper legal
restrictions. If the principle were carried out they might
as well interfere with ornamental grounds and gardens,
and say that a man should not build a house larger than
was necessary for the actual wants of his family.—The
Lord Advocate condemned the principle on the same
ground as the member for Derby. In short, they would
introduce sumptuary laws. The Bill stated that the wild
animal had multiplied to such an extent as to be
injurious to the cultivators of the soil, but
he imagined that if they repealed the game
Act there would be a marked multiplication, tothe injury
of the cultivators of the soil, of those idle, dissolute, and
lawless vagabonds referred to. It might be that the
poaching acts were too severe, but they should mitigate
their severity and leave them just sufficient for the pur-
pose of establishing and recognising the rights of property
against such depredations as had been alluded to in the
course of the debate. It might be said that if the game
laws were repealed poaching would cease. Cer-
tainly one way of putting an end to transgression
was to put an end to the law ; where
there was no law there was no transgression, but he said
that was not a satisfactory way of getting rid of crime.—
Mr. Taylor having replied, the House divided on the
question " that the question be now put," and the result
was—ayes 59, noes 147. There was a majority of 88
against the bill.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES' ACT (1866-1867)
REPEAL BILL.

The adjourned debate on asking leave to intro-
duce this bill was about to be resumed when
Mr. CRAUFURD said he observed " strangers" present
whereupon they were ordered to withdraw, reporters not
excepted, and the proceedings on the bill were carried on
with closed doors.

The reporters were not admitted until a quarter to six,
when the House was found to be in committee on the
Shipping Dues Exemption Act (1867) Amendment Bill.
The whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the bill was
reported without amendment.
The Annuity Tax Abolition Act Amendment Bill was
read a third time and passed.
The House adjourned at ten minutes to six.

The Liverpool Courier states that, after careful
inquiry, it has come to the conclusion that the story of
the affray between French and German clerks in a mer-
cantile office in Liverpool was a hoax.

The Guardian says:—"lt is highly probable—but
we should much like to be sure on the subject—that there
is no member of Oxford or Cambridge now living who
took his degree in the last century. We faucy that one
of the oldest, if not the oldest, Oxonian now living is the
Right Hon. Stephen Lushington, D.C.L., formerly
Fellow of All Souls', who took his Bachelor's degree in
the year 1802.
The death is announced of Mr. John Williams,
the editor of the Cambrian newspaper, the first newspaper
published in Wales, which was started in 1804, and
bought by Mr. Williams in 1823. Since that time Mr.
Williams has been its managing editor, and was regarded
as the father of the newspaper press in Wales.. Although
82 years of age his memory and mental powers were as
vigorous as ever, and until within a few hours of his death
he was engaged in correcting proofs.
A. Cork correspondent telegraphs that John
Gleeson was again put on his trial Wednesday at Clonmel
for the murder of the land bailiff Kirwan. The evidence
was the same as at the former trial. Mr. Justice Lawson
expressly told the jury that no provocation was shewn
sufficient to reduce the crime to manslaughter. The jury,
however, returned a verdict of manslaughter, which was
received with loud applause in court. The prisoner was
sentenced to penal servitude for life. The sentence ex-
cited much surprise.