ILL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS BILL. (Hansard, 24 March 1825)

§ Mr. R. Martin
rose, to ask for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act for preventing cruel and improper Treatment of Cattle. As the act now stood, for the most atrocious act of cruelty which a man could commit on any cattle which were placed under his care, the maximum of punishment that could be inflicted was a fine of 5l., and in default of payment, imprisonment for a month or two. He thought every gentleman would acknowledge, that animals ought to be protected, either in their own right, or as the property of the individuals to whom they belonged; and if that principle were admitted, he did not see how it could be disputed, that the punishment for wantonly injuring them ought to be increased. In the present state of the law, if a man intrusted with the care of a horse should knock out its eye from malice to its owner, or, as had recently been done, should tie its tongue to a gate, and then beat it on the head till it tore its tongue out, it was impossible to do more to such a wretch than fine him 5l., or imprison him for a month or so. Now, he proposed to make such an offence a misdemeanor, and to leave the punishment of it to the magistrates at quarter-sessions. He also intended to add a clause to the bill, to authorize magistrates at the quarter-sessions to award to the prosecutors of such offences a reasonable compensation for the trouble and expense which they incurred. As he did not expect that any objection would be made to his bringing in the bill, he should not enter further into a description of its details.

§ Mr. Heathcote
opposed the motion. He was averse to extending the punishment already awarded to offences of this nature, and more especially to leaving it within the discretion of the magistrate.

Mr. F. Palmer
was of opinion, that the hon. member had already proceeded too far with his legislation upon this subject, and he should therefore use every effort to prevent him from proceeding further. Since the hon. member had introduced his first bill for the protection of cattle, not a drover could touch an ox, not a hackney-coachman could whip a horse, 1161 without some ingenious gentleman's coming forward to call him to order. It was only this morning that his hon. friend, the member for Beverley, and himself, had seen an instance of this exaggerated zeal in the cause of humanity. They were going along the street in a hackney-coach, when one of the horses suddenly became restive, and started back, in consequence, he believed, of a waggon coming too closely in contact with it. The hackney-coachman administered three or four blows to the horse to make it spring forward again, but not with any savage violence, nor upon its head or its neck. A gentleman who saw the occurrence immediately came forward, and threatened to carry the man to a police-office if he did not instantly desist from beating the animal. Now, was such interference to be tolerated? He thought not; and should therefore, with a view of preventing its increase, give every opposition in his power to the present motion.

§ Mr. Lockhart
thought the House had done itself great honour in passing the former bill which the hon. member for Galway had introduced upon this subject. By that bill they had consecrated the principle, that animals ought to be protected by legislative interference. In so doing, the House had, in his opinion, gone far enough; and he should therefore advise the hon. member not to press it to go further, nor to weaken the effect of his bill by perpetual legislation. That bill conferred great credit on the hon member, and had already effected a beneficial change in the manners of the people.

§ Mr. Warre
would consent to the introduction of the bill, though he would not pledge himself to support its details; with which at present he was utterly unacquainted. It was an argument in favour of it, that the act which it was intended to amend had been generally reprobated as useless before it was placed on the Statute-book, and was now universally admitted to be most beneficial, since the magistrates had begun to put it in operation.

Mr. C. Wilson
supported the motion.

Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, that the former bill had done great good, and particularly in Smithfield market. Though he was unwilling to go the length of making the offence a misdemeanor, he would still vote for the introduction of the bill.

Mr. Maxwell
supported the bill. There 1162 was no duty, he conceived, more imperative upon the House than that of affording protection to animals.

§ Mr. Martin
said, he could not have believed, that any hon. member would have stood forward, as the hon. member for Reading had done, to defend the barbarities which were practised upon horses, and cattle. With regard to the anecdote which the hon. member had related respecting his adventures with the hackney-coachman, he would merely observe that, upon the hon. member's own showing, the hackney-coachman had taken the worst course in the world with his restive horses. The hon. member must be little of an equestrian, if he was not aware, that the most certain way to make a horse a starter was to beat it when it did start. He was sure the hon. member's constituents would not like the hon. member the better, for the sentiments he had that night expressed. He said so, because he knew the hon. member would soon have a petition to present from them in favour of this bill. The hon. member, at the recurrence of another election, might find it difficult to secure his return ["order!"]. He was not out of order. He had one argument in support of his bill, which he thought would secure him the vote of the Attorney and Solicitor General. It was this. The present bill was a transcript of a bill which had been approved, some years ago, by all the law lords, by lord Ellen-borough, lord Erskine, and last, though not least, by the present lord chancellor. He did not expect that mention of this last name would at all injure this bill with those gentlemen who were of opinion that "whatever is, is best." The present lord chancellor had approved of this bill, when it was sent down from the Lords to that House. He therefore trusted that the House would allow this bill to be introduced, notwithstanding the invidious sarcasms which had been thrown upon it.