Lords Sitting of 13 March 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2a Sale of Arsenic Regulation.

SALE OF ARSENIC REGULATION BILL.
The EARL of CARLISLE, in moving the Second Reading of the Sale of Arsenic Regulation Bill, observed that the subject to which it related was one that it might be easy to enlarge upon in order to show the necessity for such a measure, and that the Motion could readily have been prefaced with some striking details founded on recent occurrences with respect to the commission of the crime of poisoning; but, he felt that there was a degree of mysterious horror attached to the use of poison, which seemed to attract and fascinate a certain class of minds more than any other kind of crime, and he therefore thought it would be better to say nothing more than that it was a crime which the Legislature was called on to check as promptly as possible. In doing so, it was important to take care that any provisions of a Bill for the purpose should be made as easy of execution as possible, and afford very little opportunity of evasion, and should at the same time interpose no unnecessary obstruction to those who bought arsenic for a legitimate purpose. The provisions of the Bill before their Lordships were extremely simple. In effect the Bill enacted that no person should sell any arsenic without entering in a book to be kept for the purpose a full statement of such sale—the quantity sold, the purpose for which it was stated to be required, and the name of the purchaser, thus fixing instantly the identity and residence of the person who bought it, and the purposes for which it was said to be purchased. There were two points which might be regarded as deficiencies in the Bill. The first was, that the provisions of the Bill were limited to the sale of arsenic alone, whereas it was obvious there were many other kinds of poison which might be used by those who were so inclined to take away life; but it happened that arsenic, from the comparative absence of taste and colour, afforded great facilities for the commission of the crime of poisoning; and he had been told by those who were conversant with the history of our criminal judicature, that, among those classes where the crime was rife, "arsenic" and "poison" were looked on as synonimous. We could not debar the

1301
use of poison from those whose knowledge, opportunity, or instruction might indicate to them other poisons for their purpose besides arsenic, but we could debar the ignorant from the use of arsenic. It would be very difficult to draw up a schedule of poisonous substances used to take away life, or capable of doing so; but, even if it was possible, it would not be desirable, for it would not be by any means advisable to advertise, as it were, what poisons were not to be used, and thus show those who might wish to have recourse to them all the substances destructive to life. The other point was, the propriety of enacting a minimum amount of arsenic which should be allowed to be sold, suggestions to that effect having been made to Government. He was satisfied such a provision would, on the whole, give a tendency contrary to that desired. For instance, arsenic was used for certain diseases in sheep; and, if persons were obliged to purchase more than they wanted, they would leave it lying about as soon as they had taken what they required, and those who wished to make use of it would have less difficulty in getting at it. The Bill did not profess to deal with every sort of substance used as poison, but with a substance which experience taught them might be used for the purposes of crime with fatal facility. He had only, in conclusion, to observe, that he had hoped that this species of crime was not familiar to our age or country: but he was sorry to say that experience proved the contrary, and he thought that, however legislation might attempt to deal with the evil, it could only be successfully combated by teaching our people the true spirit of Christianity.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELLregretted the Bill was confined to the sale of arsenic, and did not extend to other poisonous articles—prussic acid, for instance. He thought they ought to follow the example of France in this matter, and not allow any one to obtain it except on an order from a medical man. After the noble Lord's statement of its provisions, he doubted very much if it would have the effect expected.
Bill read 2a.

PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee according to order.
The EARL of HARROWBYpostponed the clauses which it was his intention to move until a future stage of the Bill.
EARL GREYproposed to introduce a
1302
clause to bring foreign ships in the emigrant trade within the provisions of the Bill. Since the repeal of the navigation laws, vessels of other countries were allowed to carry emigrants; and therefore it became necessary to introduce a clause, providing that all foreign vessels sailing to British ports should be required to comply with the regulations of the Passengers Act, and should further give a bond that they would submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Colonial Courts, and to the same penalties which might be inflicted on British vessels transgressing the Act.
The clause was brought up and read a first and second time; to be reported to-morrow.

CHANNEL OYSTER FISHERY.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, he would take that opportunity of repeating a question which he had put to the Lord President of the Council towards the close of last Session, and to which he had not as yet received a satisfactory answer. He was anxious to know whether any communication had taken place, or was likely to take place, between the French and English Governments for the regulation of the trade of oyster fishing. Their Lordships were aware that by treaty the subjects of this country and of France respectively were restricted from fishing within a certain number of miles from the shores of the opposite party. It appeared that oyster beds had been recently discovered in that portion of the sea between Dieppe and Brighton, which was beyond the boundaries within which the fishing operations of both nations were, by international treaty, agreed to be carried on. The consequence of this discovery was, that the British markets were now supplied with oysters during those four months—May, June, July, August—in which oysters were heretofore supposed to have been out of season. English fishermen from the coast of Essex, and from various parts of the southern coasts, were in the habit of having recourse to those beds; but the French Government, viewing such proceedings with jealousy and disapproval, had sent gunboats and vessels of war to deter the fishermen from fishing in the proscribed locality. The English fishermen, however, were resolved not to suffer any such interposition; and the result was, that the English boats were fired at, and that some unpleasant collisions had taken place. When he mentioned the matter last Session, it was in the month of

1303
August, and the regular oyster season being then about to set in, there was no necessity to take any step in the matter; but matters stood in a different position at the present period of the year. The month of May was approaching, but there would be ample time between this and the 1st of May to make such arrangements as would preclude the possibility of any such dangers or inconveniences arising as to those to which he alluded. The matter was certainly one of importance, and it was essential that it should be at once arranged in a satisfactory manner. If some judicious regulation were not come to, angry feelings would be aroused, and life would probably be lost in the collisions which would be sure to take place between the French authorities on the one side, and the British fishermen on the other. During the four months to which he had alluded there had been employed at the new oyster bed, 145 vessels from Essex, 9 from Suffolk, 30 from Kent, 17 from Sussex, 7 from Hampshire, 2 from London, 10 from Jersey, and 6 from Norfolk—making, in all, 226. If the operations of the English fisherman were carried on in such an extensive manner in the infancy of the discovery, it was not difficult to predict that the trade would attain a still greater importance in the course of the present year, unless some measures were taken to negotiate between the two countries. He believed that the beds were public property, though very possibly the French might believe they had the best right to them, seeing that they were not distant more than 14 miles from Dieppe. The French did not choose to have recourse to the beds themselves, but they asserted that the British could not consistently with the treaty resort to them, and that was the reason why they impeded their operations. No matter on what side the legal right might really rest, it was certainly desirable that the matter should be satisfactorily arranged so as to prevent the possibility of collision.
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It cannot be doubted, my Lords, that the matter to which the noble Earl has called your attention is one of not inconsiderable importance. The French and British fisheries in general, and the fisheries to which allusion has been made in particular, are unquestionably deserving of protection, and it is desirable that no misapprehension should exist upon the subject
1304
between the two countries. When the noble Lord called attention to this subject, towards the close of last Session, my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department took especial case to institute inquiries in the proper quarters; and the Consuls at the French ports reported that there was no disposition whatever on the part of the French authorities to deal improperly by the British fishermen. No doubt some cases had arisen where fishermen were accused of violating the law; but those cases had been dealt with in a perfectly regular manner, and had been disposed of according to law. Your Lordships will perceive that it is not possible that disputes should not occasionally arise between the French and English fishers, owing to the nature of the open sea, in which both parties enjoy the right of fishing. [Lord WICKLOW: No, no!] Allow me to assure the noble Lord that he is in error in supposing that both parties are prohibited from fishing in the locality he refers to. Neither party is prohibited either by law or by treaty. The English fishermen are prevented from fishing within three miles of the French shore, and the French are prohibited from fishing within three miles of the English; but that space of the ocean which lies between those respective boundaries is open to both nations. The oyster beds in question are in the open sea, and if the French Government have taken measures to exclude the British fishermen from them, they have acted in a manner at variance with the law; but no doubt redress would be immediately granted in the event of a proper remonstrance being made. I think it right, however, to say that no complaint whatever upon this subject has been made, or at least has reached the Foreign Office since last year. If, however, anything has taken place which furnishes fair ground for complaint, measures will be taken before the month of May to prevent the recurrence of such an event. It is certainly most desirable that the sea should be open to all the fishers of both nations, and that no misapprehension should exist upon the subject.
House adjourned till To-morrow.