The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-08 00:00:00

THIRD EDITION

SUN OFFICE, SEVEN O'CLOCK.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—This I.
The SPEAKER. took the chair at a quarter past twelve.
FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.
Mr. COBDEN moved an address for a copy of a me-
morial from certain shipowners of Liverpool to the Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs, suggesting an alteration
in the Foreign Enlistment Act.
The motion was agreed to.
POISONED GRAIN, &c., PROTECTION BILL.
Mr. PAULL rose to move the second reading of this bill.
He showed that great injury had occurred to vegetation
by the extermination of birds, while, in the districts where
that destruction had taken place, insect life had greatly
increased. He had no intention of interfering by this bill
with the game laws, much less to make them more strin-
gent than they are. It was solely in the interest of farmers
and agriculture that he asked the house to pass this bill,
which would prevent the indiscriminate slaughter of birds
not now protected by law. He pointed out the dangers
arising from the use of poisoned wheat, strychnine being
generally used, and sometime cosulus indicus and arsenic.
He mentioned a case in which two poisoned rats were
found inside a valuable sow, which had died suddenly from
some apparently inexplicable cause. He should, how-
ever, move the committal of the bill, in order that the
amendment might be printed.
Mr. FORSTER seconded the motion. It was at one time
supposed that no poison could be used successfully except
poisoned grain ; but he cited the opinion of a practical agri-
culturist to show that vitriol was equally adaptable and far
more safe. lie deprecated the cruel practice of poisoning
small birds with poisoned wheat. Scientific men had clearly
demonstrated that small birds were indispensable in the
economy of agriculture. On the grounds of public safety
they ought to pass the bill, for poisoned game found its way
to their table. He begged to suggest to his hon. friend
that the penalty for using poisoned wheat should be in-

creased to £2O.
Mr. CAIRD supported the bill, and would be glad if
could be made useful without being injurious to the agri
cultural interest, which he apprehended could be accom
plished in committee. It was a mistake to a uppose the
small birds did, not do a great deal of injury to farms and
gardens.
Sir H. STRACEY also supported the bill, and read
letters to show that in no case where small birds were exten-
sively poisoned, the vegetables were covered with that de-
structive insect the caterpillar, which had not previously
been the case.
Viscount GALWAY considered the bill indispensable.
In passing through Eton the other day he was surprised
to see for sale in a window of that academical village,
" Doubly strong poisoned wheat—warranted to kill any-
thing." (Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. MARSH supported this bill, saying that plenty of
substitutes could be found bereft of danger.
Mr. HENLEY said there was a great deal of truth in
what had been said with respect to the destruction of small
birds; but unless they were very careful they would pre-
vent sportsmen from shooting birds that came under that
definition. As the bill stood it would not stand the
test of legislative investigation, so that he should be glad
to be afforded an opportunity of examining the amended bill
promised. They would have a bill careful in defining
what vermin consisted of. It was an ugly word. (Laugh-
ter.) Was a fox so definable ? He should like to know
how the lawyers would describe him. (Hear and laughter.)
Sir G. GREY said, undoubtedly it was a mischievous
practice to expose poisoned wheat, as at the present time,
but he feared the bill would be impracticable in its present
shape, for he did not find that the proposed amendments
would improve it. He should, however, support the
second reading on this understanding that the hon.
member would reprint this bill ; but he apprehended it
would be more advisable for him to withdraw it and to in-
troduce an amended measure.
Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH supported the bill.
Sir J. SHELLEY said he was a farmer of thirty years'
standing, and had tried every system of protecting his
wheat from destruction by birds, and used wheat steeped
in arsensio. Farmers were much to blame for not drilling
their wheat deep enough.
After a few words from Mr. DUTTON", the bill was read
a second time, and the amended bill was ordered to be
printed and circulated.
CASUAL POOR (METROPOLIS) BILL.
bill,
Lord RAYNHAM moved the second reading of this .
the object of which, he said, was to amend the pry!eatt
and
d
with respect to the immediate relief of casual,
ua!lreog►rape'
distressed poor in the metropolis. The bill fa
cwO___l floor fit
parishes to provide accommodation for thea.se_'.7oL—rehet
tor human beings. At present the hours t w
was given were restricted. k should
ht hours' Igor . .
this de-
fective system. He proposedTthheabtielilgwd 93;:eilliciathorities
be insisted upon in cases where the gli7ek persons pur-
deemed such an act advisable in order to
suing an idle and vagrant life.
-by the vagrant poor.
Sir B. LEIGHTON said a greftoroportion of the minor
offences in his district were committedoorne
on without some
proper hours, via,
should wants of the casual poor did no
only right that they
previous knowledge, so that it was
ve apprehended that the noble'
d.should make their wants known during
before 8 o'clock at night. *--0 Or receptacles which he de-
lord
the asyluoas
te . Er
such
eopen allnight..
Ithat the bill would throw
desired to keep
sired to have erected for the
Lord RAYNHAM intimaeof that was his desire,
Sir B. LEIGHTON °°m
ended
metropolitan par-
additional cost on the var .
d inishing the numberishes, and
on of un
would increase i of casual
and vagrant poor.
11 N thanked the noble lord for •
Mr. AYR 0 however, that it wouldintroducing
the bill. lie feared,
~tiosole in its present sh be, to a great
extent, iooPr----- d fp the present sessione) and assuredly
could not be p
T VigatleS considered that
Mr. a A-•private the subject was
to be taken uP by a member; wli . too large
duty of the poor-law Board to bring th ereaa it was the
e m
of a comprehensive measure, before the h titer, by means
Mr. LOME considered that the °u.
casual poor should be borne by the cost of the relief of the
and believing that the bill walk e whole of the metropolis,
his support, because it would work well should give it
parishes, like Marylebone compel the large and wealthy
means which drove the c and Paddington, who adopted
mane parishes, to pay their poor to other bat more hu-
mane
HANKEy ex l
.ir fair share of the general burden.
One general system p explained why the Act of 1844 failed.
be adopted in the of dealing with the vagrant poor should
the noble lord would metropolis. He hoped, for the present,
Mr. W. MAR.I withdraw his bill.
on the back of th I‘.t said, as one of those whose name was
law Board wouldet bill, he should be delighted if the Poor-
upon it. He ake up the matter and legislate quickly
drove the casual cited
figures to show that the richer parishes
rich parishes poor to the poorer districts. Thus some
Mr. NV ILllcaped scot free. (Hear, hear.)
the house uponAl'S opposed the motion, and should divide
After a wordsfewit. .
Mr, criLpiN from Sir J. C. Janvoisn,
benevolence of his nee tilte nobl.4.lleord
subjectuil had for the
and was now undernions the consideration of thee con-
sidered,Poor-law Board,
and
it was one that required much deliberation
before that department could again legislate upon it. So
far back as 1839 the Poor-law Board issued a circular to the
various parish authorities, advising them, on the score of
humanity, to admit all casual poor without previous in-
quiry as to their settlement. He cited other steps
taken in this direction by the Legislature, and the
Poor-law Board. The act of 1844 provided for the erection
of district asylums for casual poor, but that act, generally
speaking, did not work well. It was the opinion of the
late Sir G. Lewis, adduced before a committee of that
house, the casual poor were not, to a vary large extent,
much deserving of commiseration, and all the experience
of the Poor-law Board sustained that opinion. He ob-

jetted to the bill before the house, because it would entail
great expense in the parishes, and that a general board,
composed of representatives from all the parishes,
would not act well. He questioned the propriety
of compelling parishes by mandamus to carry out the
behests of his bill ; also the propriety of declaring, as pro-
posed by the bill, that every person was entitled to 24 hours
lodging and food without inquiry. The noble lord would
say that the parish would be entitled to 8 hours' work;
but he feared that after a supper and a night's lodging
they would rarely get the work, and if they sent the recal-
citrant inmate to gaol an additional cost Would be thrown
upon the public.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said they had had investigations
and committees enough, and now was the time for action.
The noble lord had taken a comprehensive and t statesman-
like view of the subject; and advised the noble lord to
withdraw this bill as the session was too advanced to pass
it, and bring it forward next session, unless the Govern-
ment would pledge themselves to take the subject up early

in the new year.
Mr. KNIGHT joined in the recommendation of the hon.
baronet.
Lord RAYNHAM would withdraw the bill if the Poor-
law Board would give him a pledge that a somewhat simi-
lar measure would be introduced early next session.
The order for the second reading was then discharged.
DOMESTIC SERVANTS AND APPRENTICES
PROTECTION BILL.
Lord RAYNHAM moved the second reading of this

bill.
Sir G. GREY opposed the bill, though, like every one
else, he gave the noble lord full credit for the benevolence
of his motives. The bill gave power to parish authorities
to inspect the food, washrooms, and sleeping apartments of
parish apprentices- twice a year, which he feared would
altogether prevent the employment of such young per-
sons.

--
Lord RAYNHAM gave way to repeated cries of " With,
draw."

The order for the second reading was therefore dis-
charged.

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
Mr. LAIRD moved the second reading, of this bill, the
object of which was to establish testing machines at the
oahlreltys
visitwere under
varioustTrade,to
p e periodically
d iwpcguidance of the Board of
thetovarero
select a competent engineer
machines, and to report upon
their. state. Lloyds owned suac atmachine, and there were
some in operation in various of the country. The
cost of the machines would be more
than compensated by
the benefit that would accrue to smalle
even more than large,
shipowners, and both classes were in favour .of this mea-
*on account of its cora-
sure.
CMr. LAlNVDESAseyconepdpedestehdethmeotbioilni
pulsory character. He, and every large shipowner, tested
their anchors, because it was to their self-interest to do so.
He begged to propose that the bill be read a second time
this day three months.
Mr. HORSFALL supported the bill.
Mr. M. GIBSON opposed the measure. It would drive
chain-making into the hands of the large makers, and would
thus work irreparable injury to the small manufacturers.
The Board of Trade could not well fix a table of fees for
the process of testing ; in fact, no one there knew
anything about what would be a fair and proper
charge. No ship would be allowed to leave a port without
her chains being examined, which would be a long and costly
process. The bill would cast a heavy additional charge on,
the shipping interest, from which thlf
te ships otbillw foreieregn coun-
tries would be altogether exempt. he passed
all the old chains and anchors would be condemned as old
iron unless they were immediately tested, which would pro-
bably necessitate a long and costly journey.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said two such great authorities
on all that appertained to the mercantile marine as the hon.
members for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) and Sunderland (Mr.
Lindsay) being at issue on this matter, the best thing that
this house could do was to refer to the evidence adduced
before the committee four years ago, which most certainly
tended to show that the new and rigid system of testing
anchors should be set on foot. He thought it would be
well for the house to affirm the principle of the bill, leav-
ing fur Navyr to another session. o ship of the
Royal went to sea without undergoing proper

tests.
Mr. CRAWFORD hoped the house would not assent to
the eecond reading, as owners of ships and the insurers
were quite capable of looking after their own interests.
Sir J. ELPUINSTONE said the bill proposed that
testing apparatus should be erected at convenient places,
and the cost of incoming vessels carrying the chains to and
fro to be tested would not amount to more than 5 per cent.
in their value. The recent death of the acrobat at Cre-
mona) testified that defective iron hooks were in common
use.

The house divided—
For the second reading ll9
44
Against it
Majority —7s
The bill was then read a second time.
NAVY PRIZE AGENTS BILL.

This bill passed through committee.
RAILWAY BILLS' BILL.
Mr. WHALLEY withdrew this bill. intimating his in-
tention to introduce a shorter bill during the present ses-
sion.
The bill was withdrawn, and leave given to bring in
another bill.
WAYWARDENS CONTRACTS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
REMOVAL OF PRISONERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.

ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
METROPOLITANS lON MAIN
B DRAINAGE EXTEN-
This bill was read a second time.
PUBLIC WORKS AND FISHERIES ACT AMEND.
MENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
JUDGMENTS LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND)
BILL.

This bill was withdrawn.
INDIA STOCK BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
GROWING CROPS SEIZURE (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
VACCINATION (IRELAND) BILL.
The Lords' Amendments to this bill were considered and
agreed to.
The house then adjourned.