CRUEL TREATMENT OF CATTLE BILL. (Hansard, 16 March 1826)

§ Mr. R. Martin
having moved, that the bill be read a second time,

The Solicitor-General
objected to the bill, as being too general and indefinite in its enactments.

§ Mr. R. Martin
defended the principle of the bill, and maintained the general accuracy of the statements he had made on a former occasion, as to the instances of cruelty practised on several animals, and what he had said of the cruelty practised in Oxfordshire towards a bull. It was true that the tongue had been torn out of the animal while alive; but it was not sent round on a plate, but on a piece of paper. The other cases of cruelty he had mentioned were also substantially correct. The case of the flaying of a dog alive was told him by a highly respectable magistrate. He thought he should have great reason to complain of the attorney-general, if he opposed the present bill; for it was in substance a copy of one which, on a former occasion, bad been corrected and approved of by that learned gentleman. His object was, to place that faithful animal, the dog, on the same footing of protection with other domestic animals.

Mr. Alderman Wood
said, he could not support the present bill, and thought he had reason to complain of the hon. member far having deserted his post the other evening when the flogging of men was under discussion. He trusted that when that question should next be agitated, the hon. member would favour the House with his attendance, and that he would not, in the mean time, expend all his sympathy upon dogs and cats, but reserve some portion of it for his own species.

§ Mr. George Lamb
did not mean to charge the hon. member for Galway with venal motives; but he really thought the only person likely to be benefited by the reward to informers, was the hon. gentleman himself. He would oppose the bill, unless he could see that they were about to legislate upon some fixed principle, rather than upon isolated instances.

§ Mr. Lockhart
approved of the principle of the bill, which had received the sanction of the legislature already, under the hon. member's auspices; but objected to any such extension of its principle as was intended by the present measure.

§ Mr. Trant
opposed the bill, and moved, that it be read a second time this day six months.

§ Mr. Warre
, although he had been a decided supporter of the other measures of the hon. member for Galway, could not give his vote for the present bill. He thought that as much had been done as the subject required, and that the hon. member ought to be satisfied without pressing other bills, for the protection of animals, on the consideration of parliament.