SECOND READING. (Hansard, 8 May 1861)

§ VISCOUNT RAYNHAM,
in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, there had been no legislation on this subject for twelve years, and it had been found that many offences of this description were committed which could not be properly dealt with under the present law. For instance, in the case of dog or cockfighting there was great difficulty at present in procuring a conviction. The Bill provided that any person present at such scenes should be regarded as aiding and abetting. Then with regard to the offence of flaying animals alive, at present persons guilty of such an offence were liable to not exceeding three months' imprisonment. This Bill increased the penalty to not exceeding six months; and the Bill also provided that all persons who bought these skins with a knowledge that the animals had been subjected to this treatment should be subject to a penalty not exceeding £10. 1747 Another provision related to drovers driving cattle in the metropolitan districts. There were many other provisions, the objects of which he might state generally, without going into detail, were to supply the defects of the existing law. One of these provisions was to require water to be supplied to cattle exposed for sale in public markets. It might appear that the Bill went too much into detail, and was directed against offences which were dealt with by the existing Act; but the law as it now stood was in some cases painfully inoperative, and he believed that in an amended form this measure might be made to accomplish an object which all humane persons must desire.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, it was very difficult to draw the line between those amendments of the law which it was desirable that the Government should propose and those which should be left to the initiation of private Members, and it was still more difficult for a Member of the Government himself to draw that line. A question of new police regulations, however, on such a subject as this ought, he thought, to be left to the Government to bring forward, if they heard general complaints that the existing law required amendment. Now, there was in existence a very detailed Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92—which was passed in 1849, and he could not bring to mind a single representation made to him of its inefficiency. That statute was worded in very general terms, with a moderate penalty; and he did not think that if they increased the penalty they would render the law more operative. On the contrary, it was generally found that if penalties were rendered more severe the public became indisposed to lay informations, and there was a corresponding unwillingness on the part of magistrates to convict. By the second clause of the Act to which he referred, it was provided that if any person should cruelly beat, ill-treat, or torture any animal, or procure it to be beaten, ill-treated, or tortured, he should forfeit for every such offence the sum of £5. That clause seemed to him to include every case of cruelty to animals, and when there was a general enactment of this nature he saw no use for a particular enactment respecting the flaying of cats. The proposed 1748 enactments with regard to cattle were already sufficiently provided for by police Acts and regulations of a similar nature. The 10th section of the Bill proposed that any magistrate should be empowered to order a horse that was disabled to be slaughtered. Now, he was doubtful whether the mere fact of a horse being disabled ought to authorize a magistrate in ordering it to be slaughtered. That was carrying legislative interference beyond the point usually recognized in this country.

§ VISCOUNT RAYNHAM
said, that this provision was only intended to apply where the horse was permanently disabled.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
did not suppose that if a horse happened to be lame for a week any magistrate would order it to be slaughtered. Well, then, his noble Friend extended the principle of the Habeas Corpus Act to animals, for by the 11th Clause magistrates, on any summons or warrant for offences under the Act, might require the owner to produce the horse or other animal alleged to have been tortured at the hearing of the charge. The same power of "bringing up the body" was applied to horses in hackney coaches; for by Clause 18 the Commissioners of Police in the Metropolis were not to grant any certificate that a carriage was in a fit and proper condition for public use unless the applicant should not only produce such carriage as was already provided for, but should also produce a certificate under the hands of two respectable householders that such person was to their knowledge the actual owner of a horse or horses sufficient and proper for the draught and service of such carriage, and of their belief that it was his bonâ fide intention to use such horse or horses for such draught or service, nor unless and until such and the same horse or horses was or were produced and submitted to the inspection of such Commissioners, who, if satisfied that the horse was sufficient and proper, might grant the certificate. He did not know whether his noble Friend had been in communication with Sir Richard Mayne on the subject of this Bill, but certainly the duty was one which it was hardly fair to cast on an officer in this position, who might be a very good Commissioner of Police but a very bad judge of horseflesh. Unless he called in the aid of experts, or employed a veterinary surgeon or an inspector of cavalry, he might frequently pass a lame horse for a sound one. Altogether, he did not think that any case had been 1749 made out to show the necessity of fresh legislation on this subject, and he hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend would withdraw the Bill.

§ MR. HALIBURTON
complained that the word "animal" was not defined in the Bill. Now, there were two sorts of animals—a dumb animal, called a donkey, and a speaking animal, called a man. Cruelty in both those cases was very reprehensible, and it was a cruel infliction on the Members of this House either to have to endure long speeches or to have to listen to Bills so crude and ill-digested that they could not be licked into any shape whatever.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, there was a definition of the word "animal" in the existing Act.

MR. HENLEY
said, the opposition offered to this Bill by the Home Secretary was almost the greatest instance of political virtue on record; for, as every cab-horse was to undergo inspection, a little army of placemen would be at the command of the Government if the measure became law. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ VISCOUNT RAYNHAM,
however, said he was willing to withdraw the Bill.