, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was unnecessary to remind hon. Members that the mission of birds was of the utmost utility, and that their destruction was exceedingly injurious, both to vegetation and to agriculture. He trusted also to be able to prove that the means used by Borne persons to destroy birds by poisoned wheat, &c., was highly dangerous to society at large. The value of small birds to the agriculturist was well understood in France and Germany, where a war of extermination against them had been too long carried on. In France, in consequence of petitions from the agriculturists, the French Senate appointed a Commission to inquire into the utility of small birds and the danger of destroying them. The Commission instituted a minute and scientific inquiry, and made a report to the French Senate, which occupied from thirty to forty octavo pages. In Germany, also, inquiries were made which showed the great injury caused to vegetation by the extermination of small birds. He would first show, as briefly as possible, how enormous was the increase of insect life in countries where birds were exterminated, and at what cost steps were then taken to reduce the amount of insect life. He would then point out the means which he proposed to take for the preservation of small birds. It was not his intention to interfere with the Game Laws, or to make them more stringent. It was solely in the interest of the farmers themselves, and of agriculture, that he asked the House to prevent the indiscriminate slaughter of birds not now protected by law. In the Report presented by the French Commission in 1861 it was stated that in the vine-growing communes of France during ten years (1828-37) the loss from the ravages of the caterpillar was estimated at £852,000. The value of the cereals destroyed in only one of the eastern departments of France in a single year was estimated at £160,000. An interesting article on destructive insects and the immense utility of birds appeared in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, vol. xxiii., published last year. This article contains extracts from a work by M. Tschudi, President of the Agricultural Society at Canton St. Gall, Switzerland, in which it was stated that some of the Governments of Germany expended several thousand thalers annually for the destruction of caterpillars. In one year an area of 860 acres of fir forest was entirely stripped of its leaves by the caterpillars of the Noctuœ, and the Government paid more than 1,000 thalers for the destruction of 94,000,000 of the above dangerous insects. In Franconia the caterpillars during 1839 devoured the produce of 2,200 acres of Government forest. The facts proved that the aggregation of small birds was invaluable for the destruction of mischievous insects. A calculation had been made of the different orders of birds—namely, those which were insectivorous and those which consumed grain and vegetables. In Germany and Switzerland—and the calculation would apply to England—there were about 150 species, and only one-twelfth of the number were purely granivorous. All the rest consumed insects. He had now shown the great increase of insect life where birds were destroyed. The destruction of small birds abroad was much to be lamented. In one day in Lombardy 15,000 birds were captured, and in one district, on the shores of the Lago Maggiore, between 60,000 and 70,000 small birds were annually destroyed. It might be said that English sportsmen were not addicted to the destruction of small birds like the sportsmen of other countries. Nevertheless the fact was un doubted that the destruction of small birds was going on at a very alarming rate in this country. He had received numerous letters on this subject. A country clergyman stated that a birdcatcher estimated that 13,848 goldfinches were annually sent from Worthing alone. He had received letters from various parts of the country complaining of the great destruction of birds that was going on, and the injury caused to gardens from this cause. Some years ago in Hampshire a war of extermination was waged against them, and rookeries were destroyed. The natural consequence soon showed itself, in such an increase of various hurtful insects, and especially of the cockchafer (which is three years in the grub state, and all that time does an immense amount of injury to the roots of grass and corn), that women and children were employed to follow the plough, to pick up these grubs which the rooks would have devoured had they not been murdered. This practical proof of their utility opened the eyes of the Hampshire farmers, and rookeries were again established, and rooks protected. The same thing happened in America, where at one time the State offered rewards for their destruction, and in consequence they so much decreased, and noxious insects so greatly increased, as to induce the State to offer a counter reward for their protection. Sparrow clubs were established throughout the country, which offered prizes for the destruction of sparrows; and it was stated in a letter which appeared in one of the journals, that three or four sportsmen belonging to a single Sparrow Club had destroyed nearly 13,000 birds in a single year. Now, in dealing with this subject, he wished to avoid interfering in the slightest degree with the interests and practices of agriculturists. He knew that farmers had long been in the habit of using some description of brine for destroying the ova and smut that might attach themselves to the seed of cereals and to the crops in the course of growth. Of late years, however, a system of using poisoned wheat had been introduced. He need scarcely point out the danger of the indiscriminate sale of an article which would cause almost immediate death on the part of the animals eating it; and if those animals were good for food, the analytical chemist would tell them it was impossible to say where the injury would stop—it was impossible to say whether the lives of those persons or animals who might eat these poisoned birds would not be endangered. He had received a letter from the hon. Member for Hereford (Colonel Clifford), who was unable to be in his place, and which, with the permission of the House, he would read—

"I am very sorry that I cannot be in my place on Wednesday to support your Bill for the 'prohibition of poisoned grain.' My own experience leads me to believe that such an enactment is become necessary. In my neighbourhood a substance is sold by the grocers under the name of 'Crow fig,' and warranted to the farmers to be quite harmless to everything but crows and rooks, and I know of my own personal knowledge that they so consider it, with what degree of truth you may imagine. It is composed of strychnine, and I have seen its effects upon my pigeons as well as on a large rookery. My attention was first called to the matter by the complaints of my keeper; and I saw one morning a year ago eight or ten pigeons drop down dead while flying from the field where they had picked up the grain, a distance of less than half a mile. On the same occasion some pigs were poisoned by picking up and devouring the pigeons. The use of this substance has nothing whatever to do with the preparation of the grain for sowing. It is intended and used solely for the purpose of destroying the birds. The mode of using it is to mix it with a small quantity of grain, and after the field is sown and harrowed this is sown broadcast, not, of course, in large quantities, but over portions of the field. The use of it is now denied, at least by my own tenants; but of its having been used even this spring by some of my neighbours I am quite positive, and in one instance could mark the field where it has been put, and of which a dead pig was the result. I really hope you will succeed in getting an Act passed to put a stop to so dangerous a practice."

He would now read a letter addressed to him by Mr. Henry Bowden, a magistrate for the county of Derby, who said—

"I see that you intend to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use and sale of poisoned grain. There are two such flagrant cases in this neighbourhood I think it right to acquaint you of them, as it will strengthen your case in some degree. A large tenant farmer under the Duke of Devonshire in the parish of Staveley for several years has used poisoned grain (strychnine, I believe), and the destruction of life has been enormous. This spring a tenant of mine has lost a valuable cote of pigeons; only last week thirty young ones were starved to death, the old ones being poisoned by feeding on the farm above-mentioned. A rookery of mine has also been destroyed by the same means, and I have reason to believe a pig has been killed by eating the poisoned birds. Mr. Whitehead, who lives at Romeley Hall, near the farm, tells me nearly all his partridges are poisoned and his keeper has picked up bushels of wood pigeons, rooks, &c. Small birds in hundreds have been gathered in the neighbourhood, and I am only surprised no one has been poisoned by cooking and eating the dead pigeons found all over the neighbourhood. Three or four dove-cotes have been completely destroyed. A tenant under the Ven. Archdeacon Hill has also followed the example of his neighbour, and of course the destruction has become greater. I hope some means may be found to put a stop to such outrageous conduct."

He had received a vast number of letters to a similar effect. He believed it to be incontestable that poisoned grain was now in common use. The poisons used for dressing grain were of the strongest and most deadly kind—Strychnine, coculus indicus, and arsenic, were the poisons most generally used. He had taken pains to inquire what were the necessary materials for dressing seed wheat, so that it might be prepared for sowing without interfering with the legitimate occupations of agriculture. Not being himself competent to form a judgment on this subject, he had consulted some large practical farmers, and, among others, Mr. Lawes of Hertfordshire, who employed an analytical chemist. He stated that it was only of late years that wheat and other grain had been prepared with poisonous materials in order to protect them from insects; but he said that he had found lime just as effectual to secure that object, and that it would not do any injury to the birds. He was informed that blue vitriol or sulphate of copper was used with perfect success for the prevention of smut in wheat; it was a simple and economical preservative, and did not affect the germination of the seed, or injure poultry or birds of any kind. Mr. C. Randell, of Chadbury, near Evesham, said in regard to the merits of blue vitriol—

"It is perfectly effectual, very economical, dries so quickly that it does not clog in drilling, will not affect the germination of the seed, if, from unfavourable weather, it cannot be used at the time intended, for, after being turned ever, it will keep good for any length of time, and it will not injure poultry or birds of any kind. The proportion is 1 lb. blue vitriol, dissolved in one gallon of warm water, to four bushels of wheat. In this proportion it is simply thrown over a heap of wheat, which is then turned, so as to be wetted equally, and left till next morning; or, if wanted to use at short notice, it will dry sufficiently to drill in three hours. Arsenic formerly was much used, but is in every way objectionable. The danger is obvious enough; in addition to which, if the wheat cannot be sown in three days after the application of arsenic, it is useless—a very large portion will not vegetate. Nothing but good can result from the operation of a measure prohibiting the use of poisons for dressing seed corn; they are not necessary for the purpose, and there is no advantage to be derived from the use of them in this way which may not be obtained otherwise."

He had endeavoured to make the Bill as stringent as possible, believing that no man had a right to protect himself to the injury and detriment of his neighbour. At the same time, such measures must be allowed to produce their effects gradually. He was told that the Bill as it stood would injure the trade of the chemists, and in deference to the representations made to him he proposed to introduce certain Amendments in Committee. If the House would give the Bill a second reading, he proposed to go into Committee to-morrow, when he would move that certain Amendments be printed, in order to the re-committal of the Bill at some future day. The Amendments which he proposed to introduce, while expressly prohibiting the use of poisoned grain—that was, grain so steeped in poison as to render it dangerous generally to men and animals—would except all solutions for dressing sheep, or for preparing seed for bonâ fide agricultural uses. The use of poisoned grain was so common that hawkersmight be found all about the country with strings of birds around their necks, and selling for a penny packages of poison enough to kill a whole village. But it was not small birds only that were destroyed. In Scotland colley dogs had been poisoned by eating the small birds which they had found. There was danger even in laying poison in guarded places. A gentleman had written to him to say, that having employed poison to kill rats which infested his house, a sow and some small pigs were poisoned, and on examining the sow the half-digested remains of portions of rats were found in her stomach. He submitted that he had shown that the utility of small birds was now recognised in England. In countries abroad they were taking every precaution for the preservation and protection of those birds, while we were allowing every person to kill and exterminate them in every way. It was with the purpose of protecting these useful creatures and preventing their wholesale destruction that he introduced the present measure, to the second reading of which he now asked the House to assent.

seconded the Motion, and trusted that the Amendments which were to be introduced would remove any objections to the measure which might be entertained, and induce the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to give his support to the Bill. There was one objection to the measure, on the ground of its supposed interference with farming. But he had received numerous letters from farmers, who assured him that the use of any poisons for dressing wheat or other grain was wholly unnecessary, and that preparing the seed with blue vitriol and such preparations would be quite sufficient for all purposes. The better class of farmers entirely repudiated the cruel practice of destroying birds by poison, though it was very much resorted to by others, who used poisoned wheat merely to save themselves trouble, without reflecting on the dangerous consequences of such a practice. He had received a letter from a gentleman who had exerted himself very much to stop the practice, and he stated that the practice had become worse, and that he had been speaking to farmers who had been used to employ boys to mind their fields; but they told him that poisoned grain was more effectual for their purpose, and that it killed the rooks better. He thought they were justified in asking the House to follow the example which had been set by France and other countries. It was admitted that these small creatures played an important part in the economy of nature, that they gave more than they took, and that if these humble instruments of Providence were destroyed, much of the food upon which our fellow-countrymen depend would be destroyed likewise. But apart from these economical considerations, on the ground of the public safety and welfare he thought that the House should at once assent to the second reading. It might be true that a man had a right to lay poison on his own grounds; but that right should be governed by the principle that we should so enjoy the things of this life as not to interfere with the rights of others. In some places entire rookeries had been laid waste, and he would ask those who contended for the right of a man to lay poison upon his own grounds, what right had any one to destroy those birds which were appointed by Providence to preserve the food of others. When they were told that game thus destroyed was sold and found its way to the tables perhaps of the rich, he would ask, was it not time for the House to interfere? He was prepared to give his assent to the Motion, and he hoped his hon. Friend would press the Bill in all its stages. He thought, however, that the penalties should be increased, and means devised to make the measure more effectual.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the principle of the Bill—the preservation of small birds—but he thought that it went much further than was necessary for the purpose contemplated by its promoters. The second clause of the Bill prohibited the use of arsenic; but arsenic was used for cleansing the wool of sheep and other agricultural purposes, and it was quite clear that such a clause could not be assented to in Committee. If so stringent a clause were retained in the Bill, its effect might be to prevent scientific men from making suggestions hereafter which might be useful to farmers. They had been told that on the Continent there were laws in existence to prevent the destruction of small birds; but any hon. Gentleman accustomed to travel on the Continent, must know that the small birds in the hedges were the great object of the Continental sportsman. He believed there was at this time the promise of a very large harvest in France and other parts of the Continent, notwithstanding the systematic destruction of small birds. He would not go into the question of the position of small birds in the scheme of creation; but it was well known how injurious sparrows, which had greatly increased owing to the destruction of the sparrow-hawk by gamekeepers, were to the farmer; and to speak as if those birds did no damage, was to show great inattention to facts. A large farmer in Kent told him, as a proof that sparrows were not fond of caterpillars, that a market-gardener had several acres of his gooseberry trees infested by sparrows and caterpillars, and he thought that the sparrows would destroy the caterpillars; they left the caterpillars, however, and ate the gooseberries. There was a very old Scotch Act of Parliament passed for the purpose of preserving rookeries; into which a clause was introduced to this effect, that it should be lawful for every one to keep crows, if he liked, provided always the crows were kept to their own trees. That was a fair principal, which he should have been glad to have seen recognised by this Bill. He should not object to the second reading, but the Bill would require to be greatly amended if it were to do any good.

said, the destruction of sparrows was very great, owing to the fact that in almost every village there were sparrow clubs, which gave prizes for the sparrows that were killed. As to the poisoned packages which men went about the country distributing for sale, he had received several letters from clergymen and others, complaining of their gardens having been quite stripped of their produce by men who, without permission, had strewn grain in their gardens. A clergyman wrote to him to say that poison was scattered on the ground in the early morning by a man who entered his garden without his leave, and who returned afterwards and removed the birds which had died of his prepared poison; that he himself found several others which died afterwards; that previously to the poison being strewn the air was vocal with their sounds, but after that, until the young were hatched, there was a dead silence; and that the fruit-trees were nearly covered with caterpillars and slugs, which rendered them almost useless. His hon. Friend had shown him a clause which he proposed to introduce, and which would entirely remove any prohibition of the use of arsenic in the cleansing of the wool of sheep. Under these circumstances, he should be glad to support the Motion.

said, he quite concurred in the necessity for some measure of this kind, for he was satisfied that the destruction of small birds was on the increase, and he could quote instances to show it. It was a bad sowing year for barley, the ground was very dry, the barley was a long time coming up, and the farmers on the limestone in his neighbourhood strewed this poisoned grain broadcast and killed no end of pigeons and rooks. He was acquainted with gentlemen who had had poultry and other things poisoned. In passing the other day through Eton, where there were so many young boys, he observed in a shop window, exposed for sale, "Doubly strong poisoned wheat, warranted to kill any one." That showed this poisoned wheat was publicly exposed for Bale, and he need hardly point out the danger of permitting the indiscriminate Bale of so deadly a preparation. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would support the second reading.

bore testimony to the usefulness of rooks in cleansing the ground of insects. With regard to pickling wheat, he could speak from great experience, not only in England, but in other countries, that sulphate of copper was amply sufficient; and he had seen wheat so prepared taken by horses and poultry and no harm come of it. A poison for rats, which was perfectly effectual, was phosphorous; and if that were used, no animal that ate the rat afterwards would be poisoned. A few years ago something happened to him which he considered a great calamity. Some arsenic was laid for poisoning rats, but an old fox and a whole litter of cubs were killed by eating it. He trusted the House would agree to read the Bill a second time.

said, the House was placed in this difficulty—they were asked to pass a measure providing against the danger of spreading poisoned wheat; but then they were told that almost every provision of the Bill relating to the sale of arsenic and other poisonous materials was to be struck out. Under these circumstances, he did not know whether anything of the measure was to remain and what. A great deal had been said about the inconvenience of destroying small birds, and there was much truth in it; but this Bill went but a very little way in preventing their destruction. Were they to prevent shooting them? He knew that the French destroyed small birds for the purpose of eating them—they would eat everything they could catch; they would eat even owls. Man was a destroying animal, and he would eat what he destroyed. It was very reasonable and proper to prevent persons from spreading poisoned grain for any purpose; it was not fair to kill creatures in that way; it was a nasty sneaking way of doing the business, and he should be glad to see it stopped. But if this Bill were to pass, no one could buy any opium, laudanum, or antimonial powders unless he had the prescription of his apothecary; and the beauty of it was, if a man got this prescription, the chemist would be quite free to sell any poison. He wished nothing had been said about game. The 8th clause provided that nothing contained in the Bill should affect any Act of Parliament with regard to game. But what had the Bill to do with game? The mention of game did a great deal of harm, for it made people suspect that the Bill had other objects than were stated in it. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) thought it better to see the Bill in its amended shape, he should not object to the Motion; but he was satisfied there was hardly a provision in it which would bear the test of ventilation in Committee. In reference to the question of steeping corn there was a great difference of opinion. He was old enough to remember the time before those newfangled notions about the steeping of wheat came in, and when farmers were in the habit of steeping it in brine. But now vitriol and arsenic had come into vogue, and there were great differences of opinion as to which was best and which worst. Where, however, things were used bonâ fide for seed wheat, no one could say that any harm would be done. But when those preparations were used after the grain was harrowed in, it was then that harm came of it. If the Bill were confined to the protection of small birds; he would not object to it, but as it stood it was so objectionable that it would embarrass everybody. It would be very desirable that the newly-printed Bill should describe what it meant by "vermin"—that was a very indefinite kind of thing. He was as great a friend of foxes as his hon. Friend (Mr. Marsh) or any other hon. Member, but he was not quite sure whether lawyers would not bring them within the category. He would recommend his hon. Friend not to take so large a word. People might find a difficulty in saying what should be brought within it, and when they came to legislation it was well to be as precise as possible, otherwise the matter might have to go to the Queen's Bench. He deprecated £20 penalties, because they would not be enforced. He would, however, willingly support a measure that gave promise of useful legislation.

said, that considering the many Amendments which were to be proposed by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, he thought the House could scarcely tell what it really was to which they were asked to assent. Yet this was the second Bill which the hon. Gentleman had laid upon the table on that subject. There appeared to be a general agreement that the practice of spreading poisoned grain or other poisonous substances over lands was a very mischievous and dangerous one; and any Bill calculated to put a stop to that practice he should very willingly give his assent to. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) with respect to many clauses of the Bill. The Bill went far beyond its professed object, and many of the clauses were quite incapable of being carried into execution. In the course of yesterday the hon. Gentleman showed the Under Secretary (Mr. Bruce) an amended Bill. It appeared from that Bill that there was not a single clause of the present Bill which was not either to be struck out or amended; and to-night it was said other Amendments were to be introduced. [Mr. PAULL said the amended Bill contained all.] He (Sir George Grey understood the hon. Gentleman proposed to strike out everything which related to the sale of poisons, and that he intended to exempt poisons that might be used for the dipping and dressing of sheep, and for bonâ fide agricultural purposes. If the Bill were so restricted, he thought the House ought to entertain it; and assuming that to be its object, he should not object to the Motion, on the understanding that the second reading should be pro formâ, and that the Bill should be re-printed and re-committed. Perhaps the better way would be to withdraw the Bill, and introduce another; but practically it would come to the same thing; and, considering the lateness of the Session, he should not wish to suggest any course which would retard the progress of the Bill.

said, though his name was on the back of the Bill, he would not have consented to the second reading had not his hon. Friend agreed to make the Amendments suggested. He considered the alterations now proposed would reduce the Bill to that form of which the right hon. Baronet and most hon. Members approved—namely, to prevent the spreading of poisoned grain on the surface of the ground for the purpose of killing small birds.

said, with regard to the use of arsenic upon seed corn, that he must be a bad agriculturist who did not drill his wheat so low that it could not be got at by the birds until it grew up, and then it could not poison them. In some cases it was essential that arsenic should be used, and he thought the present Bill had better be withdrawn for the purpose of introducing a new one in the shape in which it was intended that the measure should appear before the country. Then, during the recess, the agriculturists throughout the country would be able thoroughly to consider its provisions.

said, that he had given up the practice of dressing wheat and other grain, having found from experience that his crops did quite as well without it. But the part of the Bill to which he particularly objected was that which would prevent farmers from laying poison in ricks; for when corn was kept for any time, the number of rats and mice which got into the ricks was almost incredible. As it was now so late in the Session, and as the Bill was not properly understood in the country, he hoped the hon. Member for St. Ives would withdraw it, and thus give farmers an opportunity of discussing the measure in the recess.

said, he hoped this Bill would enable many cases of destitution hitherto without adequate relief, to be properly provided for. Although it was true that all persons in destitution had a right in this country to claim relief, wherever they might be, the parochial authorities were enabled with impunity to violate the provisions of the law; and it appeared that the Poor Law Board could not cope with those authorities when they refused to administer the relief which they were justly bound to provide. The subject attracted the attention of the House some years ago, and an Act was passed authorizing the Poor Law Board to parcel out the metropolis into six districts, for the purpose of affording relief to the casual poor; but that legislation had remained inoperative, and all persons who had been in the habit of passing through the streets of the metropolis, either by day or night, could not have failed to observe the want of proper administration of the law with regard to the casual and destitute poor. In some instances starvation had resulted from the parish authorities neglecting to afford necessary assistance in time. He trusted the present measure would put an end to the painful state of things to which he had adverted. By the Bill, the metropolis would be constituted into one district, presided over by a Board, for the purpose of the relief of casual poor, and the Poor Law Board would have the power of compelling by a writ of mandamus all boards of guardians, overseers, and other officers to carry into effect the provisions of the existing law. Thus security would be obtained for the administration of proper relief to the casual poor, many of whom would rather die in the streets than avail themselves of the relief offered at present in some workhouses. Many of the casual poor wards were in a most disgraceful state and entirely unfit for their purpose; but by one of the clauses of the present Bill—the 8th—provision was made for affording, without any luxury, the accommodation that ought to be provided for human beings. It was provided that separate and proper sleeping accommodation should be provided for every person. Another objection to the existing system was that the hours of admission were restricted, and the masters of workhouses had the power of refusing relief in cases which they deemed not to be cases of emergency. He submitted that such restrictions were not applicable where it was self-evident that the persons applying were in actual want of the accommodation they asked for. He proposed in his Bill that every asylum for the relief of casual poor should be open for the admission of poor persons at all hours, day and night, and that every person alleging destitution should be ipso facto entitled to admission. In order to prevent improper persons from availing themselves of the provisions of the Bill, he proposed that the authorities might, whenever they deemed it expedient, prescribe to the persons admitted for relief, a task of work for a time not exceeding eight hours.

said, that if very great facilities were afforded for the admission into workhouses of casual poor, a great deal of mischief was likely to be done. In a very large majority of cases, these tramps were not only vagrants, but thieves, and their robberies were almost always committed on the poor. He thought, therefore, that care should be taken not to encourage such persons, who he did not believe were exposed to the hardships and privations described by the noble Lord. He did not see the necessity of the provision that the asylums for the reception of casual poor should be open at all hours, for people could not become completely destitute all of a sudden, and therefore, when they sought the refuge of an asylum, they should go there at reasonable hours. No doubt, deaths by starvation had occurred, but not among tramps—they occurred to persons who had a repugnance to enter the workhouse, and not from a refusal of relief. One of the clauses of the Bill would make the tramps very comfortable in their sleeping quarters; but he did not see why they should complain if they were not at present worse off than soldiers during the night. The present Bill applied only to London; but if it should become law, there was danger of its being extended to the country at large, and that expensive night asylums would have to be provided everywhere. In his opinion, the Bill would tend to increase the number of vagrants.

thanked the noble Lord for interesting himself in this important subject, because the moment a metropolitan Member introduced a Bill in reference to the metropolis he was suspected of having some unfair object in view for the advantage of his own constituents. The subjeet was one well worthy the consideration of the House, and he regretted that it was so late in the Session that they could not discuss the Bill with the prospect of its passing into law before the prorogation. The main principle of the Bill had already been recognised by Parliament, and it was admitted that a grievance existed with which Parliament ought to deal. An Act was passed about twenty years ago, but from some cause or other it had never been carried out. The question which the House had to consider was why the existing law on the subject had failed, and whether there ought not to be further legislation to carry it practically into effect. He believed that it failed in its fundamental principle in providing district asylums in the metropolis, as there was no mode by which the casual poor in the metropolitan districts could be described, and hence there were constant conflicts as to the question in which district a casual pauper should be relieved. The Bill would remedy that evil, and remove all possible conflict on that ground. He admitted the great difficulties of the subject, but these difficulties might be removed if they would set about with determination to do it. Asylums might be established and conducted in such a manner that the general public would feel that there ought not to be any casual vagrants wandering about the streets at night. If such a feeling were created, a great boon would be conferred on the public. It was said that the asylums under the present Bill would encourage vagrancy. That, however, would depend very much on the way in which the asylums were managed. If they were inconsiderately managed, vagrancy, no doubt, would increase, but the object should be to have them managed so stringently that no poor person would feel any enthusiasm in going to them, but would apply for relief solely to avoid the dire necessity of starving in the streets. Rather more discretion was conferred in this measure on the Poor Law Board than those who had the care of the poor in the metropolis would be disposed to approve. The Bill could not, however, be regarded as a prac- tical proposal; but when it assumed that form, it would deserve consideration. There could be no question that it was most desirable to clear the streets at night from all vagrants, and to make such arrangements that it should be known that any vagrant who was abroad after dark was out on suspicious business, and not because he was without shelter. If the Bill were introduced again, it ought to be at a very early period of the Session, so that every board of guardians should have an opportunity of considering it. There would no doubt, be some opposition to it; but if any Petitions were presented against it by wealthy parishes, such as Paddington or St. George's, Hanover Square, on the ground that it added ½d. or 1d. in the pound to the light rates which they already paid, he trusted the House would treat such remonstrances with the scorn and contempt which they deserved.

said, he did not believe that the wealthy parishes with which he was connected would oppose any measure that was calculated to efficiently relieve the casual poor. He regretted that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) did not take up this question himself, instead of advocating the principle of the Bill, and condemning the Bill itself, as containing none of the provisions which it ought to contain. His chief objection to the Bill was, that it would take to a certain degree the control of the expenditure of the rates out of the hands of the ratepayers. He believed, too, that the Bill was a step towards the general equalization of poor rates. What were called the casual poor were not always those who were deserving of charity, but many of them were those who made a trade of vagrancy. He thought the Bill dealt with a subject that was too extensive to be taken up by a private Member, and that it was one that ought to taken up and dealt with by the Poor Law Department of the Government.

said, that this Bill merely sought an extension of a principle which had been recognised over and over again by the Poor Law Board. The principle of irremovability after a three years' residence had been recognised, and their relief had been removed from the parishes and placed on the union. We lived in a great metropolis, in which a mass of casual poor were wandering in the streets, and the principle of the Bill was that the general metropolis should provide for the relief of those casual poor. That was a just principle. In many parishes of the metropolis provision was made for the casual poor, while in others there was none; so that when the casual poor applied for relief in the parishes in which no provision was made for them, they were sent to the parishes in which provision was made. That was unfair, and the Bill provided that every parish should contribute equally for the general object. The rich parishes did not pay their fair share to the relief of the poor, and so parishes such as St. George's, Hanover Square, and Paddington and Marylebone, invariably opposed such a measure as this.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that the wealthier parishes were seeking to relieve themselves at the expense of the poorer ones:—on the contrary, the present Bill had been introduced at the instance of London parishes, and especially of several in the West End. In 1844 an Act was passed for the establishment of asylums for the casual poor, and also for schools; but it had remained in abeyance ever since. It was not the fault of the rish parishes of London that that Act was not carried out, for more than one of them took steps to carry it out, but found it impracticable to do so. The Bill now before them proposed to re-enact that Act with the exception of a single clause. This question, however, was too large and important to be dealt with successfully except by the Poor Law Board, and it would be well to have reports from the police and workhouse authorities before any legislation were attempted. In some of the workhouses the casual wards were very good, and in others they were very bad. The want of uniformity was the great difficulty of the case. It was found that the least restriction, such as requiring the casual poor who were admitted to take a bath, had the effect of sending them to another parish where that condition was not enforced. Another great difficulty was that by these asylums they might be giving a lodging during the night to thieves, and setting them free to pursue their depredations during the day.

said, that as one of the promoters of the Bill, he should be very glad to hand over the subject to the Poor Law Board. What was wanted was the establishment of a uniform system of relief for the casual poor of the metropolis on the common purse principle. It was monstrous that there should be some wealthy parishes whose poor rates were almost nil, while poor parishes were paying several shillings in the pound.

said, the reason of the failure of the Act that was passed some years ago on this subject was, that it attracted all the thieves and vagabonds of the country to London; and he believed that the present would not be more successful if it were passed than the Act to which he referred. He should give it, therefore, his decided opposition; and if nobody else did so, he would divide the House upon it.

said, that he regretted the absence of the President of the Poor Law Board, which was owing to an important engagement elsewhere. He readily joined with other hon. Members in giving credit to the noble Lord (Viscount Raynham) for the benevolence of his intentions in bringing forward this Bill; but he would assure the House that the subject, so far from having been neglected by the Poor Law Board, had been for a long period, and was at this moment, under its consideration. It was one, however, surrounded with difficulties, and require a large amount of consideration before it could be brought before the House in the shape of a Bill. In 1837, in consequence of certain complaints received from the police, the Poor Law Board issued a circular to all the metropolitan unions advising them to relieve the destitute poor without previous inquiry as to settlement. Again, in 1838, the Board issued another circular instructing unions to afford relief in workhouses. The Poor Law Board found, that while a large number of unions had complied with the order of the Board, there were certain unions that had not, and therefore in 1839 workhouse officers were warned, on pain of dismissal, to receive urgent cases into the workhouse; and a similar order was issued in 1841. In 1844 the 7 & 8 Vict. was passed providing district asylums; and in 1845, following out the provisions of that Act, the Poor Law Board divided the metropolis into six asylum districts, and at the same time urged the appointment of boards of management. In 1846 there was a Committee of the House of Commons to inquire how far the Poor Law Board had exercised its powers as to the district asylums. It was then abundantly proved, by the evidence of the late Sir George Lewis and others, that it would not be wise to take for granted that the majority of those cases that came under the title of casual poor were all deserving and needy persons. Sir George Lewis stated that they included mendicants and others known to be generally persons of dissolute character, living habitually a life of laziness, imposture, and crime. There were, of course, many exceptional cases, and some of those cases had come under the kind notice of the noble Lord, and had had the effect of directing his attention to this particular subject. The Committee did not make a Report; but by the casting vote of the Chairman a Resolution was adopted to the effect that the establishment of district asylums would be beneficial and tend to suppress vagrancy in the metropolis; but the majority of parishes were so averse to being combined in unions for this purpose that the Committee recommended the Poor Law Board to suspend their orders for forming district asylums until the parishes were reconciled to the establishment of them. In 1858 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wilts (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), then President of the Poor Law Board, issued a letter to forty-one unions asking their opinion as to the praticability of carrying out the measure that had been proposed. Nineteen unions objected altogether to the provisions of the Act of 1844, five were in favour of them, one expressed itself doubtful, one urged further inquiry, and from fourteen no answer at all was received. One of the first objections to the present Bill was the expense it would entail without sufficient representative supervision. It would, also be found that one large metropolitan board, such as the noble Lord proposed to constitute, would not act better, but rather worse, than separate boards appointed by the different unions. He was not surprised that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) should have supported the Bill, because he had a suspicion that the ruling feeling of the hon. and learned Gentleman in matters of this sort was to bring about in some way or other the equalization of rating in the metropolis, and he probably regarded this measure as one step towards his darling, object. By Clause 5 the central board was to be compelled by mandamus, in the event of its not carrying out the regulations of the Act. That was a very questionable provision. It was not proposed to compel the Board to buy land for the establishment of asylums, or to force owners to sell land for such a purpose. Under Clause 6 every person alleging himself destitute would be entitled ipso facto to food and lodging for twenty-four hours' without inquiry. Those hon. Members who had been in the habit of attending meetings of boards of guardians would agree with him that it was not sufficient a man or a woman should say he or she was destitute to entitle the applicant to twenty-four hours' relief. But the noble Lord proposed that eight hours' work should be got out of the persons relieved as casual poor. How was that to be done? If the persons refused to work, they might, indeed, be sent to prison; but it would be impossible to get the work out of them. On the whole, seeing that no legislation could take place in the present Session, that some of the principal provisions of this Bill were strongly objected to, even by those who agreed in the general object with the noble Lord, and that the subject was at this moment under the consideration of the Poor Law Board, who were constantly obtaining additional information respecting it, he hoped the noble Lord would withdraw the Bill; and if he found that the Poor Law Board failed in what he deemed to be its duty, he could again draw attention to the subject.

said, that in the fact that this subject had been under the consideration of the Poor Law Board for upwards of twenty years, and yet that nothing had been done, was to be found the justification of the noble Lord for having introduced a Bill which had produced a very interesting discussion, and which he hoped might lead eventually to some useful result. Almost every speaker had acknowledged that there was an evil to be grappled with, and that at present the law provided no efficient or adequate remedy. He believed that the difficulty arose in a great measure from the large number of persons who were attracted to London by the unwise and indiscriminate charity of residents at the West End, and who sooner or later became chargeable upon the parishes at the East End. Hence the burden of their support was thrown in an undue degree upon the East End, and it was almost impossible to have any satisfactory or uniform system of dealing with them. No doubt, there were many obstacles in the way, for with some exceptions the casual poor might be regarded as a semi-criminal class; but what the noble Lord desired to do was to introduce a change by which the number of such persons might be reduced, while every requisite aid was given to the really deserving poor. It was true the Bill provided that every person who represented himself to be destitute should be relieved; but it also provided that he should do eight hours' work the next day, or, in case of refusal, be sent to prison. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gilpin) asked how that was to be enforced—how they could make a man do anything? Why, if he refused, he was to be sent to prison. The Government might, if they pleased, suggest a more satisfactory provision in Committee, but certainly the noble Lord was not obnoxious to the charge of desiring to encourage vagrancy. He believed the Bill might at least be made the basis of practical legislation; but he was afraid it could not be carried through in the present Session, and would consequently advise the noble Lord to withdraw it, on the understanding that the Government would themselves deal with the subject next year.

believed that the Act of 1844, if carried into effect by the Poor Law Board, would do all that the noble Lord required. The remedy had been provided by Parliament, and it only rested with the Poor Law Board to carry out the enactment. He complained that the Board never seemed to regard themselves as trustees for the poor as well as for the ratepayers, whereas their first object ought to be to make proper provision for the destitute, and their second to reduce the rates.

said, he should be glad to withdraw his Bill if he could obtain an assurance from the Poor Law Board that early next Session they would bring forward a measure to effect the object he had in view. If, however, it was the opinion of the House generally that he ought to withdraw the Bill, he was prepared to do so.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, stated that its object was to extend, for the benefit of all orphan and deserted children entering domestic service or becoming apprenticed, the principle of the measure passed a few years ago for the protection of young persons of the same age who had been brought tip in workhouses.

said, he fully recognised the benevolent motives of the noble author of the Bill; but he thought the measure would be prejudicial to the interests of those for whose advantage it was intended. Every employer of these young persons was to be compelled to make certain returns, and to have his establishment subjected to a system of visitation; the effect of which would be to deter many from taking them into their service at all.

said, he would consent to withdraw his Motion.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that having had some experience of the difficulty of insuring the good quality of anchors and cables, he had come to the conclusion that legislative interference for that purpose was called for. In that opinion he was supported by the great body of the mercantile classes, and also of the chain and cable manufacturers. Evidence had been given before a Committee of that House, a few years ago, showing the necessity for a measure like the present, and how great risk to life and property was caused by the use of defective anchors and chains. The object of this Bill Was therefore to provide that machinery for testing the quality of those articles should be established in different parts of the country; and that licences should be granted by the Board of Trade to corporate or other bodies for the erection of such testing apparatus. He did not intend to interfere with the manufacture of cables and anchors; but he proposed that the Board of Trade should appoint a competent engineer to see that the proving machinery was kept in good order. The Bill would render it unlawful for makers and dealers to sell unproved anchors and cables, and would require every British vessel to be equipped with stamped anchors and cables. The measure would not have a retrospective effect, but would, if passed, come into operation on the 1st of January next. The hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) desired that power should be given to corporations to raise money for the erection of testing machines, and he saw no objection to the introduction of a clause having that object. He had no doubt that testing machines would be placed in all the principal towns where they would be requisite for the proper carrying out of the Bill. That would be a great advantage to the small shipowners, for whose benefit such a measure as this was most necessary. The larger shipping companies were better able to protect themselves in this matter; and, indeed, a system was practised by Lloyd's under which anchors and chains were now subjected to proof. Yet one-half of the shipping of the country was not passed at Lloyd's; and Lloyd's themselves required such a test only in the case of first-class vessels. If, however, this Bill passed, every master, sailor, or passenger would know that he was going on board of a ship which would be properly provided with ground tackle. He was sorry to have had an intimation that the President of the Board of Trade meant to oppose this measure, on the ground that it would be an undue interference with trade; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would change his intention, if he had ever entertained it. The Bill would give much less trouble to the Board of Trade than any other matter which that Department had under its charge, while at the same time it would have a beneficial effect in regard to the safety of life and property. He begged therefore to move the second reading.

, in rising to second the Motion, hoped the House would not pronounce a decision adverse to the principle of the Bill. This was analogous to those cases, common to all trades, in which the makers of genuine and valuable articles sought the protection of the Legislature against the makers and vendors of worthless and spurious imitations; and the public in general asked for protection in a matter in which they could not protect themselves. The objections taken against the Bill on a former occasion were twofold; the first against compulsory testing itself, the second against Government interference. With regard to the former, it might be enough to say that underwriters, shipowners, and manufacturers all agreed that the badness of iron cables and anchors was a great and growing evil, and were doing their best to put an end to it; and though inconvenience would doubtless be felt at first in sending articles already manufactured and disposed of to be tested, that was an inconvenience which would gradually die away, and anything was better than the continuance of a practice so destructive to human life as the use of bad cables and anchors had been. It had been said, and might be again, that you might as well exercise supervision over ropes and rigging; but those were matters upon which a sailor might judge for himself, whereas it was perfectly impossible for him to judge of the quality of a painted chain cable or anchor, and his life might be sacrificed by the criminal parsimony of his employer. Well, then it was objected that many people were killed on railways, but that there was no proposal to test the iron used for rails or wheels. That was only half true. Railway companies had to pay heavily for the privilege of killing passengers for the sake of economy. Evidence was taken in such cases of the quality of the iron; whereas when a ship went down at sea no such evidence could be obtained, and if the owners were covered by insurance, they lost nothing, but the poor men lost their lives, and their families lost those who earned their bread, and were too often thrown upon the parish. Then it was said that each link must be stamped, or else fraud might take place. No doubt fraud might take place, as it probably did in the case of gold and silver marks, but it would seldom be worth the risk in the case of iron cables, and certain lengths might be stamped at each end without any difficulty. But was Government interference necessary? Might not all this be left to Lloyd's committee and private enterprise? Lloyd's regulations were most valuable; but Lloyd's was a company of private individuals, and their recent regulations might be rescinded by subsequent resolutions. Besides, a very large number of ships were not classed at Lloyd's at all. Whereas, if this Bill became law, any vessel on a voyage with untested chains and anchors would be on an illegal voyage, and would forfeit her insurance, just as a passenger vessel with an insufficient number of boats now does. This Bill extended the practice towards that considered necessary for Government vessels, but only partially so, for Admiralty anchors were proved by fire and water as well as by strain, and in Admiralty cables the practice of filling the links with heavy stay pins of inferior iron was restrained. If this Bill passed, he believed that private enterprise under Government inspection would be quite sufficient to furnish and work testing machines to carry the law into operation, and he intended in Committee moving an Amendment in Clause 1 to that effect; but he was quite sure that the principle of the Bill met with almost universal approbation, and that the provisions it contained gave general satisfaction; and if Government opposed it, it only showed that the Government set a higher value on the safe conveyance of their stores than on the safety of the lives of a numerous and most valuable class of Her Majesty's subjects.

said, that the Committee to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) had referred, had reported against the compulsory testing of anchors and cables. This Bill, however, was a compulsory measure. If they were to enter upon a course of such legislation, where were they to stop? If they interfered with the shipping trade at all, they would soon be asked to go a great deal further. No doubt many vessels were lost through having bad anchors and cables, but still more were lost through having insufficient spars, or through being constructed of bad iron. Were they, then, to have a Government Inspector examining and certifying as to the quality of every spar, and the sufficiency of every iron plate? It was all very well to say that any sailor could judge for himself as to the quality of a spar; but it might have dry rot, or some other defect not visible to the eye. Again, many ships foundered at sea from their bad construction. Must they, therefore, have Government surveyors in all their shipbuilding yards to see that vessels were properly built? If the Government thought proper to interfere in the matter of anchors and cables, they ought to interfere in these other matters, which were of quite equal importance. Moreover, this Bill was so crude that it would be totally impossible for the Board of Trade to carry it out. How, for example, were they to be sure that the certificate of proof, when produced, was the certificate which really applied to the cable or anchor then on board the ship? He doubted whether the feeling of the shipowners generally was in favour of this Bill. It was for the interest of the shipowners themselves to supply their ships with good anchors and chains, and most of the large shipowners now tested their anchors and chains; but that was no reason why the poor man should be compelled under heavy penalties to do the same. It would be much better to leave the matter to their own option. On these grounds, he would move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read the second time that day two months.

said, he was surprised at the course taken by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), and still more at the likelihood of this measure being opposed by the President of the Board of Trade. Few Bills had been introduced in that House which were more important to the shipping interest. He believed the great majority of the shipping interest were in favour of this measure, and on behalf of his own constituents, he was anxious to see it passed. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave) appeared to think the Bill was retrospective in its character; but it would not come into operation till the 1st of January 1864.

said, he thought this measure would impose very grave responsibilities upon the Board of Trade, and also duties which it would find very difficult to perform. If, however, the House sanctioned the principle of the Bill, that Department would do its best to carry out the spirit of the enactment. Everybody admitted the desirability of every ship being provided with good anchors and cables. The difficulty was how to secure an object of that kind by legislation. The matter was really one of detail. Two objects were contemplated by the Bill—first that no untested anchor or cable should be sold after a certain date in this country; and second, that no British ship should be allowed to leave a British port unless it was equipped with certificated anchors and cables. To effect the first object, it was said that somebody would set up testing machines; but there was no security taken that that should be really done. No doubt there would be testing machines in parts of the country where there were large manufactories of chains and anchors; but in other places the small coasting shipowners would have no testing apparatus near them, and the expense of sending their anchors and chains to be proved at a distance would be greater than they could bear. The Board of Trade was to license persons to put up testing machines; but would people be found to invest their capital on a chance of that sort in all parts of the kingdom? If not, then they would establish a monopoly of chain and anchor making in certain districts, and the smaller manufacturers in other districts would be deprived of their trade. Again, the Board of Trade was to fix the charges made for testing; but how were the officers of that Department to tell what were the proper charges for these operations? If they fixed the scale too low the owners of the apparatus would discontinue the business; if they fixed it too high, they would be imposing undue burdens on the shipping interest. Then, as to the second object, how were they to secure that a vessel should be equipped with a tested anchor and chain? He presumed a Custom-house officer or Government Inspector must go on board and examine not, perhaps, every link—which would, perhaps, be necessary to make a good job of his work—but every length of fifteen fathoms, to see that it had the Government stamp on it. Such a process would detain the ship an hour or two, and also necessitate an increase in the official staff. All our first-class ships and all vessels employed by the Government, or engaged in conveying emigrants, were already required to have their anchors and cables tested, and in the case of those ships no measure like the present was necessary. It was the coasters only which were not provided for under the present voluntary system. Was it necessary, then, to legislate for the case of the coasters alone? There was no evidence that coasters were lost from the bad quality of their ground tackle. The fact was that the coasters were in the habit of going to sea insufficiently manned, and consequently the ground tackle they used was not heavy enough or strong enough in proportion to their tonnage. He was not prepared to offer an unqualified opposition to the second reading; but if the Bill were read the second time, it would require extensive alterations to give effect to the intentions of the House; and at that period of the Session there was little chance of passing a really efficient measure. He would therefore recommend that the Bill be delayed for further consideration. It would impose a great additional charge on British shipping, from which foreigners would be exempted. Was the present stock of anchors and chains—a great proportion of them, no doubt, excellent—to be condemned as old iron, without compensation to the parties, unless they went to the expense of sending them to be tested, perhaps to a distant part of the country? The expense thus occasioned might be equal to the value of the property, without reference to the fees for testing to be fixed by the Board of Trade. It would, he thought, be very hard to call on private parties to bear all this expense for some object of public utility, without compensation. No doubt, the object was a philanthropic one, although in some quarters there might be a little feeling that it would bring manufacturers of anchors and chain cables into particular localities, and thus create a monopoly; he did, however, hope that while he would not stand in the way of the second reading of the Bill, hon. Gentlemen would consider the details, and seriously pause before they gave their assent to the machinery contained in its clauses.

said, that there were two hon. Members to whose opinions on questions affecting the mercantile marine they were all disposed to attach weight—he meant the hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Sunderland—and when those two were found to be at issue, the House might naturally feel embarrassed; and in this perplexity all they could do was to form the best judgment they could for themselves. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Milner Gibson) spoke in very doubtful language, but, upon the whole, he appeared to have come to the conclusion that he could not support the Bill. He hoped the House would show him that they entertained a very decided opinion on the question, and then he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would conform to it. The hon. Member for Sunderland had referred to the Report of the Committee four years ago; but he (Sir John Pakington) thought it would be much better to be guided by the arguments which had now been adduced. It was said, if they interfered with anchors and chains, they would next have to deal with rigging and spars. But that was one of the weakest of arguments. Here was a practical grievance; let them deal with it, and not be deterred from doing so by the apprehension that if they did what they could to cure one evil, they would perhaps be called on to remedy some others. This was eminently a commonsense question. They wanted protection for the mercantile marine. They had clear practical proof, year after year, that protection was required. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no evidence that coasters were lost through defects in their anchors and chains; but he maintained, as a matter of common sense, that no ship was safe in going to sea unless her anchor and cable were seaworthy. In the tremendous and memorable gale at Balaklava no fewer than thirty transports had been lost, and Admiral Dundas's Committee had reported that those ships had been lost through defects of their anchors and chain cables; while none of Her Majesty's ships had been lost, which had good anchors and cables. Shipowners, to the value of 1,000,000 tons of shipping, and eight or nine insurance offices, had petitioned in favour of this Bill. Let the details be considered in Committee. They were not now considering the details, but the principle of the Bill. They should remember one thing, that no ship of the Royal Navy went to sea without a tested anchor and a tested cable. Now, what it was possible to do for the Royal Navy it was possible to do for the mercantile marine. He therefore hoped the House would pronounce an unhesitating decision in favour of the second reading of the Bill.

hoped the House would not agree to read the Bill a second time. It was not only unnecessary, but most impolitic, to interfere in matters of this kind, and endeavour to do that which shipowners were well enough able and altogether disposed to do for themselves. What, under this Bill, was to prevent the owner of a ship of 1,000 tons, having only economy in view, to take an anchor which was only capable of holding a vessel of 500 tons? It had been said that shipowners were in favour of this Bill, but he was not prepared to endorse that opinion. On the contrary, he held in his hand a letter signed by the Secretary of the General Ship Owners' Society to the Board of Trade, objecting to the Bill. He believed he was speaking the sentiments of many of those whom he represented when he said not only that this Bill was unnecessary, but that it would be at once burdensome and ineffectual for its object.

said, with reference to the objections of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford), it would be very easy to make regulations by which ships of a certain tonnage should have anchors and chains of a corresponding size and strength. This was already required by all Insurance Offices in London. It was intended to provide that there should be testing machines erected in convenient places, to which anchors and cables might be sent to be tested, and the expense to a ship would not be more than from £2 to £3, while one testing might serve as long as the ship was on the register to which it belonged. With regard to coasters, the anchor was their last resource, and in a gale many of them remained under weigh, because it was known their anchors would not hold them. With regard to the argument about monopoly, it was not every country blacksmith who shoed horses that could make a chain cable; the anchor and chain cable interest was already confined to particular districts, and he did not see why a small chain should not be tested as well as a large one. An unfortunate acrobat had lost his life by the snapping of the eye of a hook by which the cable was made fast on which he was performing; and the other day, at Lloyd's testing house at Blackwall, the chain cable, weighing 15 tons, intended for a ship of 1,800 tons, which should have borne a strain of 72 tons, broke at a strain of 18 tons—only three tons heavier than the chain itself. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed at a loss to know how the duties which this Bill would impose on the Department could be performed; but if he would appoint as Inspector Mr. Robert Bowman, who had given evidence before the Committee, all his difficulties on that score might easily be obviated. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) talked of the details of this Bill; but in the Merchant Shipping Act, which consisted of 626 clauses, everything had been provided or, even to the testing of a captain's brains—except, indeed, the only thing which was of indispensable necessity to the preservation of the whole life and property embarked—namely, the ship's anchors and chains.

said, it did not necessarily follow, that because anchors or chain cables broke, the material was therefore bad or the workmanship defective. The force of a gale might be so great that no anchor or chain cable could resist it. He opposed this Bill on principle, as an unwarrantable interference with the shipowners of this country in the proper conduct of their own business. He had no reason to believe that the majority of shipowners of this country were in favour of the Bill.

said, it had been stated in evidence before the Committee which inquired into that subject, that 81 per cent of the cables manufactured in this country were defective. The fact was that the whole of that manufacture was a system of fraud and iniquity; and the result of that fraud and iniquity was a deplorable loss of life at sea. The Bill would afford a remedy for that evil; and he hoped it would receive the sanction of Parliament. The arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade against the measure seemed to him to militate in its favour; and he certainly saw no reason why the Board of Trade should refuse to undertake the new duties which it would impose upon them.

said, that his constituents in Tynemouth had informed him that they were in favour of the Bill, and he should therefore give to it his support.

admitted that in passenger ships, where the lives of many were exposed, it might be very proper that Government should keep a watchful eye over anchors and chains; but when it was said we want to protect our ships, it should be borne in mind that the ships did not belong to them, but to the shipowners; and, if Government was to interfere in such matters, there would be no end to their interference, and great injury would be done to the free course of trade.

, in reply, said, that the Chamber of Commerce and the Shipowners Associations in Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool, and other places, with the manufacturers in Staffordshire, had petitioned in favour of this Bill.

, in moving that the Order of the Day for the Second Beading of this Bill be read, in order to its being discharged, said, that the object of the Bill, which he had introduced at an early period of the Session, was to authorize the establishment of a permanent Department to deal with new railway projects. The subject was admitted to be one deserving of consideration, and a Committee was appointed to inquire into it, and the Report of that Committee was now before the House. He should not now ask the House to read the Bill a second time; but if allowed to withdraw it, he should ask leave to introduce another Bill of a more limited character, which he hoped would be passed this Session. That Bill would give effect to two Resolutions agreed to by the Committee—one, that unopposed Bills might receive the sanction of the Legislature without the expense and risks attendant upon the present mode of proceeding in Parliament; and the other, that such projects might be referred to a department of the Board of Trade, to report whether the requisite conditions had been complied with.

then asked leave to introduce a new Bill upon the same subject.

asked whether it was in accordance with the rules for an hon. Member, upon a Motion day, to interpose a new Bill without notice.

said, that when the House gave leave to withdraw one Bill with a view to the introduction of another, the practice was to allow such new Bill to be introduced at once.

said, he did not intend to oppose the Motion. The Committee recommended the enlargement of the dining-room, but he thought an improvement in the dining should precede an enlargement of the room. He did not dine there very often, but he should do so more frequently if he could get anything fit to eat. He hoped, when Parliament met again, there would be a change in the constitution of the Kitchen Committee.

thought the proposed enlargement of the dining-room would be a great improvement, but he also thought that some of the complaints that were made were not well founded. Dining there recently in company with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), this question became naturally a subject of conversation between them, and they both thought that Mr. Steers would be harshly treated if the management of the business were taken out of his hands and transferred to another gentleman. It was said that Mr. Steers' successor was to have a larger allowance by £200, but it would be fairer before dismissing Mr. Steers to grant him that increase in order to ascertain whether he could not then obviate the chief complaint, which was of imperfect attendance.

said, the right hon. Baronet misunderstood the Motion before the House, which was not the dismissal of Mr. Steers, but the enlargement of the dining-room. The Committee of which he was a Member had passed a Resolution; and unless the House adopted the Resolution, the result would be that hon. Members would get no dinner at all.

remarked, that this would be the only opportunity which the House would have of expressing an opinion upon Mr. Steers' catering. He could only say that he thought the dining was as good there as in many of the clubs in town, and he doubted whe- ther any improvement would be effected by changing the contractor.

said, an enlargement of the dining-room would alter the arrangements of the House. The fact was, the fashion of dining at the House had become general. Formerly Members only went to Bellamy's to get a chop; but now most Members dined there, and the House of Commons was the greatest dining club in London. As to Mr. Steers, he had no fault to find with his arrangements.