§ Mr. R. Martin moved, that the bill be now read a second time. Upon which, 759 the attorney-general move, "That it be read a second time this day six months."
§ Mr. R. Martinexpressed his surprise that the attorney-general had not assigned any reasons for opposing the bill. The learned gentleman ought to have done so, if not in courtesy to the member who brought the measure forward, at least on account of its having received the approbation of a large portion of the inhabitants of the country. The learned gentleman had placed himself in opposition to the common sense of the whole nation. The magistracy of London and Middlesex had spoken in an articulate manner in favour of the measure. It had received the support of clergymen who did honour to their calling. There was not a pulpit in London that had not spoken in a pronounced manner in approbation of it. It had been asserted by the advocates of cruelty, that the bill did not define in what cruelty to animals consisted. But, could any one define what was called excessive correction of an apprentice? He would not object to a horse being beaten; but he would protect the animal from being inhumanly treated. The utmost penalty which his bill provided for the most flagrant case of inhumanity towards an animal, was three month's imprisonment, or the payment of a fine of 5l. Was this unreasonable?
The Attorney Generalobserved, that he had had an opportunity, in the course of the last session, of explaining the reasons for his objecting to a measure of this description.
§ The House divided, for the second reading: Ayes 29. Noes 18.