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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN[

HOUSE OF COMMONS.---This Day.
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. Ho had no intention of interfering by this bill
with the game laws, much lesa 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 coeulus 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. He 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 tablec. 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 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 s appose tha
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 knew
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 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. i
CASUAL POOR (METROPOLIS) BILL.
bill,
Lord RAYNHAM moved the second reading of thisnt
iavi.
ii
the object of which, he said, was to amend the par.e„snee, and
with respect to the immediate relief 'of casual, la b ,
parishes to provide accommodation for the
at which relief '
distressed poor in the metropolis. The bill wont eerapeL i
for human beings. At present the hourso
was given were restricted. The,bilLw hourswork should
feetive system. He proposed that %het
patio- authorities
end thpiosordfie-t 1,
be insisted upon in cases where t
minor
h w properas hhi hours, udr
es
8,
i:n.
t roportion of the
adueiennagedansuidclhe anan daevtaagdrvanista.blilfee.in order to cheek persons Pux
Sir B. LEIGHTON said a grit:
id by the vagrant poor.
offences in his district were cowl
der not come on without some
The wants of the casual poLirt it was only right that they
previous knowledge,
I'o
r metropolitanreceptacles
°
Iliapprehended that the
tellewnedeadPtPhat the bill would throw
before should
smolckleoctkhesitr wantsil
igshut .
venous
nioluuras
lord desired to keep the asylums
casual
poor open all night.
andel-
,,,i ntorsosdunrceidnigy
sired to have erected for th tdhuatrisnuge
diminishing
itthe number Lord RAYNHAM Intimated
Sir B. LEIGHTON
the
umber of casual
aanddditNi_aognraalnctosi::irl.
ri N thanked the noble lord
Mr. AYRIO
LEWIS considered that the
would increase insteadhoo
Lie feared, wf e vr,
the bill.would be, to a great
d the present shape, an,,
assuredly
could not be passe i
session.
impracticabl% in its resent
cext...en_t.,.a.
-el r taloa up by a private num subject was too large
to be
brine.' whereas .
duty ot the POOl-.law Board to h s it W 9.8 the
of a comprehensive measure, before bi
e matter, by means
Mr. LOCKE considered that the
t le house.
casual poor should be borne by th cost of the relief of the
and believing that the bill would e whole of the metropolis,
his support, because it wouldu d work well should give it
parishes, like Marylebone compel the large and wealthy
means which drove the ea and Paddington, who adopted
mane parishes to pay sual poor to other but more MI,-
Mr. HANiEY their fair share of the general burden
One general s explained why the Act of 1844 Wiled..
ystein of dealing with
be adopted in the
the noble lord metropolis. He hoped, for the present,
mr. . _
_,would withdraw his bill.
\V AlAla IN s, '
on the back of th e bill, aid, as one of those whose name was
11, he should be delighted if the Poor-
law Board would take
up
the matter and legislate quickly
upon it. Re cited figures to show that the richer parishes
drove the casual
rich parishes poor to the poorer districts, Thus some
escaped scot free. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NV ILLI AM
the hou • S opposed the motion, and should divide
se upon it.
After a few words from Sir J. C. JERTUISE,
, 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 cons?-a ' oration 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 1841 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 very large extent,
much deserving of commiseration, and all the experience
of the Poor-law Board =stained that opinion. He obej

jetted to the bill before the house, because it would entail
great. expense in the parishes, cud that a general board,
composed of representatives from all the parishes,
would not act well. Tie 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 hews
lodging and food without inquiry. The noble lord would
say that the parish would be entitled to 8 hours' work;
but ho 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 cent 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 I statesman-
like view of the subject; and advised the noble lord to
withdraw this bill as the s..3ssion 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