HC Deb 08 July 1863 vol 172 cc377-89

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. PAULL

, 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.

MR. C. FORSTER

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.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. CAIRD

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.

SIR HENRY STRACEY

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.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

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.

MR. MARSH

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.

MR. HENLEY

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.

SIR GEORGE GREY

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.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

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.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

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.

MR. DUTTON

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.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed, for Tomorrow.