Mr. Lushingtonrose to move for the repeal of certain acts relating to the Flaying of Hides and Skins. The considerations which induced him to move for the repeal of these acts were, that they were unnecessary, vexatious, expensive, and unjust; and he was sure they would appear so to any one who examined them. They 411 were unnecessary, because the butchers required no laws to make them take care of their own property; they were vexatious, because they rendered the property of persons in that trade liable to constant inspection; they were expensive, because they were attended with heavy penalties; and they were unjust, because they operated unequally on the town and country dealer. Under these circumstances, he thought they should not be allowed to remain on the Statute-book. He should, therefore, move for leave to bring in a bill, "to repeal two acts of the 39th and 40th of his late majesty, relating to the use of horse hides in making boots and shoes, and for better preventing the damaging of raw hides and skins in the flaying thereof."
§ Mr. Jamesthought there could not be two opinions on the subject. The two acts ought by all means to be repealed.
Mr. Maberlyobjected to the mode in which the hon. gentleman seemed disposed to proceed with respect to the repeal of these laws. His object seemed to be to exonerate the town trader, but to leave the laws respecting the country trader in all their oppressive operations. The best course to have pursued would have been to have moved for a committee up stairs. He would venture to affirm, that it would have been distinctly proved by evidence before that committee, that so far from those laws being unnecessary, they had been the means of. preserving one-fifth of the whole of this material. If what were called long stripes were wanted, the hides were frequently rendered unfit for the purpose of obtaining them in consequence of the negligence of the butcher. He was far from denying that the law, as it stood, did not require modification; but he contended, that no alteration in it ought to be attempted, until the whole question had been considered in detail.
§ Mr. Huskissonsaid, that on looking at the acts which it was intended to repeal, he found that they were not public acts. He recommended his hon. friend, therefore, when his bill should come to the stage of the committee, to move that it be referred to the consideration of a select committee above stairs. Of this he was quite persuaded, that should the measure be discussed in a committee of the whole House, endless petitions would be presented against it, and much valuable lime would be lost.
§ General Gascoyneobserved, that the hon. mover had shown no reasons whatever for repealing the existing law. There could be no doubt, in his mind, that the measure ought to undergo a thorough investigation in a committee; and he was persuaded, that if the hon. gentleman's bill should pass into a law, a year would not elapse before the House would be glad to get rid of it. The general hostility entertained in the country to the proposed repeal, had been sufficiently manifested by the petitions which had already been presented on the subject, all expressing the decided conviction of the petitioners, that the repeal of the existing law would be attended by serious inconveniences.
Sir R. Fergussonmaintained the expediency of repealing the existing law. What did that law do? Fine a man for injuring his own property! Suppose, by any unfortunate accident, the gallant general who had just spoken, were to make a hole in his pantaloons, how would he like to be fined for the misadventure? The existing law proceeded on the ridiculous supposition, that the tanners did not know their own business.
§ Mr. Brightwished to know whether the hon. mover of the bill would consent to its going before a select committee above stairs.
§ Mr. J. Martinwas also desirous to know whether the hon. gentleman would consent to allow the subject to be previously investigated before a select committee, or would send the bill to such a committee in its progress. The first course would, in his opinion, be the best. The proposal for repealing the existing law had created a great sensation among those who were interested in the subject; and it was due to them, that the expediency of the measure should be satisfactorily ascertained.
Mr. Lushingtonexpressed his persuasion, that if the subject were referred to a committee, so much delay would take place, that it would be impracticable to: get the bill through parliament in the course of the present session. Convinced as he was, that the matter was perfectly clear, he thought it was too much to ask him to submit to such an inconvenience.
§ Mr. Curwenadmitted that the existing acts were abominably unjust and injurious, but strongly recommended that the subject should undergo the previous examination of a committee.
§ Mr. Curteismaintained, that the present law was most inconvenient and ridiculous. If a butcher's boy, in killing a pig, happened to make a mistake in the manner of doing it; and if the inspector on the spot declared that he had killed it improperly, then, according to the present law, a high tribunal was formed, consisting of eight and twenty persons; namely, seven butchers, seven tanners, seven curriers, and seven shoemakers, before whom the matter was brought for adjudication.
§ The House divided: Ayes 52; Noes 6.