Mr. Martin,of Galway, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to extend the provisions of the act 3 Geo. 4th., cap 71, to prevent the cruel and improper treatment of cattle. His bill was, he said, an exact copy of a bill which had been drawn up by the Attorney-general, and which had formerly undergone discussion in another place. The object of it was, to render the cutting and maiming of animals maliciously, punishable as a misdemeanor. Formerly, that offence was punishable under the Black act as a capital felony; but the repeal of that act had brought the whole law again into force, which punished the cutting and maiming of cattle with transportation, provided it could be proved that the party guilty of such cutting and maiming was actuated by malice against their owner. Now, he wished to give to animals the right of protecting themselves; or rather to give to any person who chose to act as their prochain ami, the right of covering them with the protection of the law. With that view he submitted to the House the draught of a bill which had formerly been drawn up by the hon. and learned gentleman, who now filled the high situation of his majesty's Attorney-general.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he would not oppose the introduction of the bill, on the contrary, he was rather desirous to see it, as it purported to come from his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney-general. He wished the hon. member for Galway would introduce into one bill all the objects of his compassion; because, if he did not, the Statute-book would soon be increased to a very inconvenient bulk. He likewise wished that the hon. member would define more clearly what he meant by the word "malice." Was it malice against the animal, or malice against the master, which he wished to punish?
Mr. Martin.—Both, but particularly malice against the animal; who ought to have his remedy at law in such cases.
§ Mr. Peel.—Was it, then, to be considered as malice against the animal, if any person cropped a dog's ears? If the dog was to be the judge, he would certainly deem it malice against himself that led any person to mutilate his body. If he understood any thing of the hon. gentleman's bill, it would certainly tend to put down several practices which at present were very prevalent in our mode of treating brute animals, and would go further than the House would be likely to sanction. He would, however, reserve what he had to say for the future stages of the bill.
Mr. F. Palmerread the preamble of the act which this bill was introduced to extend, and contended, that from the very large terms of it, any extension of its powers must be quite unnecessary. He had intended to have opposed the introduction of the measure; but he would forego his intention, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department.
Mr. Martinreplied, that he had made nothing an offence in his bill, which had not been previously declared such under the Black act—an act under which several men had been hung, and repeatedly executed. It might be a very good joke—though, for his life, he could not see the wit of it—to ask him whether he meant to make the cropping of a dog's ears a misdemeanor. He had, however, a very triumphant answer to give it. It was not declared a hanging matter under the Black act to crop a dog's ears; and, it would not, therefore, under this act be declared a misdemeanor. His bill would not prevent any gentleman from bestowing on his dog that punishment which was necessary to remind it of the discipline it ought to follow in the field. He might whip it if he pleased from sunrise to sunset; but he must not cut it, or maim it wantonly, because such cutting and maiming could neither improve it as a setter or a beagle. In the committee, if this bill should ever get so far, he should propose several additional clauses; but at present he should content himself with introducing it as it had been prepared by his hon. friend the Attorney-general.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.