The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY . MORNING, MAY 2(, 1870.

but then he contended the two things were totally
different, because the latter was an important
article of food. It was also most important that steps
should be taken to prevent the taking of those fish in the
close time, when they were unfit for human food; there-
fore some public object was served by the maintenance of
laws for the protection of salmon, but such was not the
case as regarded the protection of game. There were number-
less arguments in favour of the repeal of these game laws,
and he did not know a more important one than the put-
ting an end to those dangerous conflicts that took place
between keepers and poachers, where human life was so
commonly destroyed in the most reckless manner for the
sole purpose of preventing a pheasant or a partridge being
shot.

Mr. HARDCASTLE opposed the motion, and moved the
previous question. He objected to the bill because, if it
should pass, it would become quite unworkable, and result
in the end in a more stringent law with respect to trespass
taking its place. He also thought the bill was a step
backward in legislation. He did not believe that tenant
farmers could not fight their own battle. The last election
shewed that such was not the case, and to his mind it
proved most indisputably that if the tenant farmers put
their heads together and took any matters up with a view
of change, that change took place without any extraneous
aid being required. (Hear, hear.) The bill in his opinion
would become inoperative, because it set out with calling
upon the landlord to tell how much game he was the owner of,
an estimation it was impossible for him to make. He
regretted that, as the Government had touched the
matter, they had not taken it up in a bolder spirit than
they had, but with regard to the present bill he had the
greatest objection, and therefore he asked the House to
agree to the motion he had submitted to it.
Mr. STURT opposed the bill, believing, from a long ac-
quantance with tenant farmers, and not the subject under
discussion, that it would be most uawise to pass the bill
because it would increase crime, and bring about a
most lamentable state of things.
Mr. M'ComsiE read a number of private letters from
large tenant farmers in Scotland, all condemning the
Lord Advocate's measure, and approving of the bill
brought in by the hon. member for Leicester. He said
he should give his vote in favour of the second reading of
the bill now under consideration.

General FORESTER said he should not have spoken had
not an allusion been made to his brother. It had been
stated that a little boy had been fearfully lacerated by a
dog belonging to his brother. The fact was that much
annoyance had been experienced by the depredations
of boys, and the dog was kept to scare them
away. On the case in question, the dog was
muzzled, and only scratched the boy. The sum of £5 was
sent to the boy's mother, and the keeper was discharged.
The case had been much exaggerated in the public
prints.

Mr. M'LAGAN objected to the bill, and " talked it
out."

TELEGRAPH EXTENSION BILL.

The Marquis of HARTINGTON obtained leave to bring 111
a bill to extend the Telegraph Acts 1868-69 to the Chan-
nel Islands.

POSTAGE REGULATIONS.

The Marquis of HARTII4GTON also obtained leave to
introduce a bill for the further regulation of duties on
postage, and for other purposes relating to the Post
Office.
The House adjourned at ten minutes to six.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.