The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAXENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
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 coculus indicus and arsenic.
He mentioned a case in which two r oisoned rats were
found inside a valuable sow, which had died suddsnly 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. I t 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. He deprecated the cruel practice of destroying
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 tables,. He begged to suggest to his hon. friend
that the penalty for using poisoned wheat should be in-
creased to 120.
Mr. CAIRD supported the bill, and would be glad if it
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 suppose that
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 cases 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 ho 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 arsensic. 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.
Lord RAYNHAM moved the second reading of this bill,
the object of which, he said, was to amend the present law
with respect to the immediate relief of casual, ailing, and
distressed poor in the metropolis. The bill would compel
parishes to provide accommodation for the casual poor fit
for human beings. At present the hours at which relief
was given were restricted. The bill would amend this de-
fective system. He proposed that eight hours' work should
be insisted upon in cases where the parish authorities
deemea such an set advisable in order to check persons pur -
suing an idle and vagrant lite.
Sir B. LEIGHTON said a great proportion of the minor
offences in his district were committed by the vagrant poor.
The wants of the casual poor did not come on without some
previous knowledge, so that it was only right that they
should make their wants known during proper hours, viz.,
before S o'clock at night. He apprehended that the noble
lord desired to keep the asylums or receptacles which he de-
sired to have erected for the casual poor open all night.
Lord RAYNHAM intimated that such was his desire.
Sir B. LEIGHTON contended that the bill would throw
additional cost on the various metropolitan parishes, and
would increase instead of diminishing the number of casual
and vagrant poor.
Mr. AYRTON thanked the noble lord for introducing
the bill. He feared, however, that it would be, to a great
extent, impracticable in its present shape, and assuredly
could not be passed in the present session.
Mr. H. LEWIS considered that the subject was too large
to be taken up by a private member ; whereas it was the
duty of the Poor-law Board to bring the matter, by means
of a comprehensive measure, before the house,
Mr. LOCKE considered that the cost of the relief of the
casual poor should be borne by the whole of the metropolis,
and believing that the bill would work well should give it
his support, because it would compel the large and wealthy
parishes, like Marylebone and Paddington, who adopted
means which drove the casual poor to other but more hu-
mane parishes, to pay their fair share of the general burden.
Mr. HANKEY explained why the Act of 1844 failed.
One general system of dealing with the vagrant poor should
be adopted in the metropolis. He hoped, for the present,
the noble lord would withdraw his bill.
Mr. W. MARTIN said, as one of those whose name was
on the back of the bill, he should be delighted if the Poor-
law Board would take up the matter and legislate quickly
upon it. He cited figures to show that the richer parishes
drove the casual poor to the poorer districts. Thus some
rich parishes escaped scot free. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. W ILLIAMS opposed the motion, and should divide
the house upon it.
After a few words from Sir J. C. JERvOISE,
Mr. GILPIN gave the noble lord full credit for the
benevolence of his intentions. The subject had been con-
sidered, and was now under the consideration of the 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, that the casual poor were not, to a large extent,
mach deserving of commiseration, and all the experience
of the Poor-law Board sustained that opinion. He ob-
jected 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 parishets,
would not act well. He questioned the proprite. Y
of compelling parishes by mandamus to carry oat
e
behests of his bill ; also the props iety of declaringe_e,,l2urrtt
posed by the bill, that every person was entitled tourZda
lodging and food without inquiry. The noble l
say that the parish would be entitled to 8 laainocigiag
' work;
but he feared that after a supper and a nigantt tidhe
reeal-
they would rarely get the work, and if they
used
I be thrown
recap
citrant inmate to gaol an additional cast We
upon the public. stigations
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said they had
.head,wiiatrfor action.
and committees enough, and now was tbi
noble lord to
The noble lord had taken a comprehensi
vtherd
like view of the subject; and advised ,satesman-
advanced to pass
too
withdraw this bill, as the session
unless the Govern-
it, and brine- it forward next seeae, the subject up early
meat would pledge themselves to
dation of the hon,
in the new year. econgoeu
Mr. KNIGHT joined in the r
withdraw the bill if the Poor-
baronet.
I
that a somewhat Simi-
Lord RAYNHAIk would a pledge
law Board would give him dueed early next session.
lar measure would be intr9 reading
was then discharged.
The order for the seco„And
ANTE AND APPRENTICES
DOMESTIC SERI, ,
cTION BILL.
pROT-t,
oved the second reading of this
Lord RA.YNFLAAI
bill. noosed the bill, though, like every a
Sir G. GREY noble lord full credit for the benevolence
else, he gave the ne
The hill gave power to parish
authorities
of his motives. t.
food,
washrooms, and sleepin
to inspect th:33;aiees
twice a year, which g apartments of
parish p
a- Pr event the employment of he feared would
I altogether Pr Such young per-
sans. yarHAN gave way to
Lord RA repeated cries of " With-
draw.
The order for the second reading
was therefore dis-
chargedA.
NCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
Mr. LAIRD moved the se
object of which was to establish testing machines at the
Trade, who e guidance of the Board of
were to
select a competent engineer
e various to periodically visit th
ous machines, and to report upon
their state. Lloyds owned such a machine, and there were
some in operation in various parts of the country. The
cost of the machine
the benefit that B would be more than compensated by
puld accrue to small even more than large
shipowners, and
sure. both classes were in favour of this mea-

Mr, CAVE seconded the motion.
Mr. LINDSAY
opposed the bill on account of its com-
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. GIB.SON 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 the ships of foreign coun-
tries would be altogether exempt. If the bill were 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 matter.
Sir J. PA.KINGTON 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 further progress to another session. No ship of the
Royal Navy went to sea without undergoing proper

tests.
Mr. CRAWFORD hoped the house would not assent to
the second reading, as owners of ships and the insurers
were quite capable of looking after their own interests.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE 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 b be tested would not amount to more than 5 per cent.
in their value. The recent death of the acrobat at Cre-
morne testified that defective iron hooks were in common
use.

The house divided—
For the second reading ll9
Against it ..44
—75
Majority
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.
RiaMOVAL OF PRISONERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Ihis bill was read a third time and passed.
ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
METROPOLITAN MAIN DRAINAGE EXTEN-

SION BILL.
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 LACY 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.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, HALF-PAST 4 O'CLOCK.