HC Deb 07 June 1822 vol 7 cc873-4
Mr. Buxton

rose, on the order for the third reading, of this bill, and having stated some objections, recommended the hon. member by whom it was introduced, to withdraw it, for the purpose of introducing an amended measure next session.

Mr. R. Martin

could not consent to abandon the bill.

Mr. Monck

opposed the Bill, and moved, "That it be read a third time that day six months."

Mr. Scarlett

opposed the Bill, not because he did not concur with the hon. mover, in disapproving of the ill-treatment of animals, but because the offences proposed to be punished by this bill were of too vague and indefinite a nature. Indeed, if the, principle were adopted he could not see where the line was to be drawn, or why there should not be a punishment affixed to the boiling of lobsters, or the eating of oysters alive.

Mr. Holford

expressed a wish that the hon. member would withdraw the He really should not, as a magistrate, know how to act, if a postboy were brought before him, under the present bill, for riding his horse too hard.

Mr. R. Martin

said, he was satisfied of the propriety and justice of the measure; and, as he thought the majority of the House was with him, he should press it.

The amendment being withdrawn, the bill was read a third time, and passed.