The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--This Day.

The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past 12 o'clock.
POOR LAW (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT

BILL.

Mr HENNESSY moved the second reading of this bill,
which he said would give to the Poor Law Commissioners
in Ireland the same permissive power now possessed by the
English Poor Law Board of issuing orders for the out-
door relief of the able-bodied. He contended that while
the system was expensive, it operated against the morality
of the people.
Lord NAAS regretted the hon. member had renewed
this question, which was discussed very fully at the com-
mencement of the session, when it was shown that a com-
mittee which hal sat upon the subject had reported almost
unanimously against the proposition proposed by the hon.
gentleman. He denied that this bill would assimilate the
Irish law with that of England, and contended that if it did
tho English law could never work in Ireland. He believed
that public opinion was altogether against the measure in
Ireland. He, therefore, moved that the bill be read a
second time that day three months.
Mr BAGWELL supported the amendment. He ad-
mitted that the people of Ireland had too much pride to go
into the workhouses, but he had no hesitation to say there
was not a farmer throughout the country who would not
receive outdoor relief. The people paid the rates, and ac-
cei,ting relief, they considered they were merely getting
back a portion of what they had paid. He had himself
known applicants for relief who had a thousand pounds in
the bank, (Loud laughter.)
Mr P. 'URQUHART supported tLe bill on account of
its permissive character, and because it was only designed
to meet special cases of distress,
Sir R. PEEL said as the feeling of the house appeared to
be against the bill, the hon. and learned gentleman would
not press it to a division. He believed the law of the two
countries could not be assimilated with advantage.
Mr. BLAKE denied that the impression of the house
was against toe bill. He thought it a good one, and ha
should therefore give it his support. He hoped his hon.
friend would go to a division.
Mr O'REILLY supported the bill.
Mr GEORGE thought the bill quite unnecessary, and
therefore he should vote against its second reading.
Mr MONSELL said if they wished to destroy Ireland
to increase emigration tenfold, and to impose taxation too
heavy to be borne, the best course they could adopt would
be to agree to the principles advocated by the mover of the
bill. It was perfectly idle to talk of this bill being popular
with the intelligent classes in Ireland.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority.. —l77
The bill was consequently lost.
TEST ABOLITION (uXFORD) BILL.

This bill passed through committee, and was reported.
Air SELWYN gave notice that he should oppose the
third reading.

STREET MUSIC (METROPOLIS) BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
Mr lIANKEY inquired whether " Punch" would be
prohibited by the bill ?
Mr BASS—Certainly not.
Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGUESSEN said " Punch"
was generally accompanied with a drum and fife, and
might be removed under the scope of the bill.
Mr BASS said that if the hon. gentleman would intro-
duce a bill protecting the ancient exhibition of "Punch,"
he would gladly consent to it.
Mr AYRTON amusingly criticised the letters which Mr
Bass had circulated from parties in favour of the bill, all
begging him to persevere with his bill. He thought a
person in a handsome house when music was played in
front of his house, might go to the back room.
Mr BASS said one organ came before, and one behind.
Mr AYRTON felt it to be a measure of tyranny, awl
that if people did not pay the musicians they would not
come. In private streets the music was encouraged by the
domestics, and no one ever saw these wandering Italians
look up to the drawing-room windows for payment. They
always cast their eyes to the kitchen, and this bill would
be directed not against musicians so much as against
domestic servants, who were the great supporters of this
sort of music
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought the bill should remain
as it is, or that every heuseholder should have the power
of sending away street musicians if they wished to do su.
He should be sorry to interfere with the German bands,
because he had heard some well worth listening to, but upon
a balance of considerations, he was prepared to give power
to the householders he had indicated.
Sir T. SHELLEY opposed the bill on the ground that it
would del:rive the poor of a means of arauseroeut.
Sir G. GIi:EY thought the bill would be of great service,
af it would enaLle the magistrates to come to a decision on
a matter upon
wh:ch there was now great doubt. Ha
every householder should have the
thought it fair that .
power of removing that which he considered a nuisance
from before his door.
Mr BASS said Mr C. Dickeas had remonstrated against
this sort of -music, and it would simply be ridiculous to say
that he was one who wished in the slightest degres to lessen
the enjoyments of the poor and industrious classes. (Hear.)
Poor Thackeray was driven from house to house by this
street music, and it was known that Tenry son was driven
away from London for the same cause.
Sir J. TRELAWNY objected to this species of penal
legislation.
Mr lI.A.NKEY also objected to the bill.
Mr CLAY thought the object of the bill had been mis-
understood. It would not stop street music, but merely
have the effect of sending it from districts where it was
objected to to places were the people did not object to it.
Mr AYRTON having moved an amendment to one of
the clauses, the house divided, when there appeared—

For the amendment
Against it

Majority

The amendment was therefore negatived.
Mr BENTINCIi. moved an amendment, which gave to
magistrates before whom a street musician might be con-
victed power to imprison him for any period not lonh'or than
three days.
Mr. W. R. CRAWFORD asked the hon. member how
he rropcsd to mike pfovi4on L:),r the unfelt:mate monkey