§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 1:
§ Offences of cruelty.
§ 1.—(1) If any person—
- (a) shall cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-drive, over-load, torture, infuriate, or terrify any animal, or shall cause or procure, or, being the owner, permit any animal to be so used, or shall by doing or omitting to do any act, or by causing or procuring the commission or omission of any act, cause any unnecessary suffering, or being the owner, permit any unnecessary suffering to be so caused to any animal; or
- (b) shall convey or carry, or cause or procure, or, being the owner, permit to be conveyed or carried, any animal in such manner or position as to cause that animal any unnecessary suffering; or
- (c) shall cause, procure, or be a party to, the fighting or baiting of any animal; or shall keep, use, manage, or act or assist in the management of, any premises or place for the purpose, or partly for the purpose, of fighting or baiting any animal, or shall permit any promises or place to be so kept, managed, or used, or shall receive, or cause or procure any person to receive, money for the admission of any person to such premises or place; or
- (d) Shall wilfully, without any reasonable cause or excuse, administer, or cause or procure, or being the owner permit, such administration of, any poisonous or injurious drag or substance to any animal, or shall wilfully, without any reasonable cause or excuse, cause any such substance to be taken by any animal; or
- (e) Shall subject, or cause or procure, or being the owner permit, to be subjected, any animal to any operation which is performed without duo care and humanity;
§ (2) For the purposes of this section an owner shall be deemed to have permitted cruelty within the meaning of this Act if he shall have failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision in respect of the protection of the animal therefrom:
§ Provided that where an owner is convicted of permitting cruelty within the meaning of this Act by reason only of his having failed to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine.
§ (3) Nothing in this section shall render illegal any act lawfully done under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, or shall apply—
- (a) to the commission or omission of any act in the course of the destruction, or the preparation for destruction, of any animal as food for mankind, unless such destruction or such preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary suffering; or
- (b) to the coursing or hunting of any captive animal, unless such animal is liberated in an injured, mutilated, or exhausted condition; but a captive animal shall not for the purposes of this section be deemed to be coursed or hunted before it is liberated for the purpose of being coursed or hunted, or after it has been re-captured, or if it is under control.
§ THE EARL OF DERBY moved an Amendment in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after the word "by" ["or, being the owner, permit any animal to be so used, or shall by"], to insert the words "wantonly or unreasonably." The noble Earl said: There is no desire on my part to lessen the strength of this Bill, but one is bound, when a Bill like this is accompanied by a Memorandum which is so inaccurate as the one which accompanies this Bill, to look very carefully into the various provisions. I have done so, and I find that the words "wantonly or unreasonably" appear in the two Acts which it is proposed to consolidate, and I see no reason why they should be omitted from this Bill. I know that it is contended by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that the words "unnecessary suffering" cover the case, but I do not share that opinion. A man, for instance, might cause unnecessary suffering not out of malice but because he did not understand the case. He might treat the animal for one illness when it really had another. That might cause unnecessary suffering, but it would not have been caused wantonly or unreasonably, and therefore would not deserve punishment. The object of the Bill would be just as well carried out if the words "wantonly or unreasonably" were inserted, and it would prevent a case being brought against a man who, with the best intention in the world, had made a mistake perhaps I in the diagnosis of the illness of the animal.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("by") insert ("wantonly or unreasonably").—(The Earl of Derby.)
LORD SAYE AND SELEIt seems to me that to insert the words "wantonly or unreasonably" would be to give a loophole for cruelty. In 99 cases out of 100 where an owner permitted unnecessary suffering it would be wantonly or unreasonably done, yet under the Amendment the burden of proof would rest with the prosecution, and it might be very difficult to get a conviction.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYThis is supposed to be a Consolidation Bill. Why were the words in the original Acts taken out?
§ THE EARL OF DERBYThe noble Lord says he cannot explain that, and therefore I must insist on my Amendment.
LORD SAYE AND SELEI will not trouble the House to divide against the Amendment, but will content myself with entering a protest.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Consequential Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI think the words "be a party to" at the beginning of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) are rather too wide. I therefore propose to delete them, and to insert "aid or assist at."
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("be a party to") and insert ("aid or assist at").—(The Earl of Derby.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy next Amendment is to omit from paragraph (a) of subsection (3) the words "unless such destruction or such preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary suffering." But I do not wish to press this Amendment if I can get an assurance from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that this provision will not be used by "cranks" for instituting prosecutions. It is probably very unnecessary cruelty to put a live lobster into boiling water, but it is invariably done. Under this Bill, however, that would be liable to prosecution. I understand that the noble Lord docs not mean to effect any change in the present methods of the cooking world.
§ LORD NEWTONHow can the noble Lord opposite possibly give a guarantee that the Bill will not be construed in the 759 way suggested? If I were in the position of the noble Earl who has this Amendment on the Paper I should be very chary in accepting any assurance from the noble Lord opposite.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI do not wish in any way to lessen the power of the authorities to prevent cruelty, and therefore I will not move the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy noble friend Lord Leigh, who is not able to be present to-day, has asked me to move the new clause, after Clause 2, which stands in his name on the Paper. The substance of this new clause was discussed at a previous stage, and the Government at that time were not unwilling to accept it but with certain limitations, and those limitations are to be found in the last sentence of the proposed new clause which runs—
No order shall be made under this section unless it is shown by evidence as to previous convictions or character of the owner or otherwise that the animal is likely to be exposed to further cruelty.I believe those words have been favourably received by the Government. But apart from that I wish to move the clause in words slightly differing from those which appear on the Paper. I have communicated with noble Lords opposite, and I may say that the words which are suggested really proceed from the Government side of the House.
§
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
If the owner of any animal shall be guilty of cruelty within the meaning of tin's Act to the animal, the court, upon his conviction thereof, may, if they think fit, in addition to any other punishment, deprive such person of the ownership of the animal, and may make such order as to the disposal of the animal as they think fit under the circumstances. Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless it is shown by evidence as to previous convictions or character of the owner or otherwise that the animal is likely to be exposed to further cruelty."—(The Earl of Camperdown)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYThe Act of 1849 is repealed by this Bill, but there is a provision in that Act which I think 760 should not be repealed. I refer to the section prohibiting a person licensed to slaughter horses from acting also as a dealer in horses. I think the House will see that such a practice might lead to great abuse and cruelty. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
§
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
It shall not be lawful for any person who shall be licensed to slaughter horses during the time while such licence shall be in force to exercise or use the trade or business of a dealer in horses."—(The Earl of Derby.)
§ THE EARL OF DERBYYes. The provision is in the Act at the present moment.
§ LORD NUNBURNHOLMEI should like to ask whether this new clause would prevent an officer of a ship from slaughtering a horse which had been seriously injured on a voyage?
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI do not think the noble Lord can have understood the new clause which I am proposing. It is that a man who has a licence to carry on the business of a knacker shall not act also as a horse dealer. That does not apply in any way to the captain or officer of a ship.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5:
§ Animals in pounds,
§ 5.—(1) Any person who impounds or confines, or causes or procures to be impounded or confined, any animal in any pound shall, while the animal is so impounded or confined, supply it with a sufficient quantity of wholesome and suitable food and water, and if he fails to do so he shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
§ (2) If any animal is impounded or confined in any pound and is without sufficient suitable food or water for six successive hours, or longer, any person may enter the pound for the purpose of supplying the animal therewith.
§ (3) The reasonable cost of the food and water supplied to any animal impounded or confined in any pound shall be recoverable summarily from the owner of the animal as a civil debt.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI move to omit the words "or procures" at the commencement of subsection (1). They are unnecessary and might open a very wide field.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("or procures")—(The Earl of Derby.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 6:
§ Poisoned grain and flesh, &c.
§ 6. If any person—
- (a) shall sell, or offer or expose for sale, or give away, or cause or procure any person to sell or offer or expose for sale or give, away, or knowingly be a party to the sale or offering or exposing for sale or giving away of any grain or seed which has been rendered poisonous except for bonâ fide use in agriculture; or
- (b) shall knowingly put or place, or cause or procure any person to put or place, or knowingly be a party to the put ring or placing, in or upon any land or building any poison,
§ EARL CARRINGTONI move to insert, at the end of paragraph (b), the words in my Amendment. The object is to reinstate words which were struck out by mistake.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, after ("poison") insert ("or any fluid or edible matter (not being sown seed or grain) which has been rendered poisonous")—(Earl Carrington.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SAYE AND SELEThe object of the new clause which I move to insert after Clause 7 is to meet the objections of the noble Marquess and the noble Earl opposite with regard to traps. The introduction of this Amendment is considered necessary by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and is justified by the large number of convictions for cruelty arising out of animals at various times being caught in spring traps and remaining there for a long time in great suffering.
§
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause—
.Any person who sets, or causes or procures to be set, any spring trap for the purpose of catching any hare or rabbit, or which is so placed as to be likely to catch any hare or rabbit, shall
762
inspect, or cause some competent person to inspect, the trap at least once in every twelve hours, and if any person shall fail to comply with the provisions of this section he shall be liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds."—(Lord Saye and Sele.)
§ LORD NEWTONI should like to have the words "competent person" defined. Would a woman or a girl be a competent person?
§ LORD NEWTONIt is very difficult to get any explanation from the noble Lord about his own Bill. I really think I am entitled to some definition of what constitutes competency in this matter. The noble Lord always takes refuge when questioned about this Bill by saying he really does not know much about it.
§ LORD NEWTONWhenever I have asked for an explanation the noble Lord has, in so many words, said that he does not know much about the Bill. Now I ask him to tell me what he means by "competent person."
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe expression is a very common word in Statutes. The object here is to prevent an animal being kept in torture for a long period, and the expression "competent person" would cover somebody with sense enough to act in the matter.
§ LORD NEWTONIf that is so, then I suggest that the word "competent" is unnecessary.
THE EARL OF MAYOI would point out that a spring trap can catch many other animals besides a hare or rabbit. I would like to substitute for "hare or rabbit" the word "animal."
§
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
To leave out ("hare or rabbit") and to insert ("animal")—(The Earl of Mayo.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEIs my noble friend sure that that will be an improvement to the clause? Spring traps are used to catch moles. Is it intended that mole traps must be inspected once in every twelve hours on a penalty of £5? I think we might leave "hare or rabbit" 763 in as a general definition. It will be a difficult clause to enforce, but it is an indication that in the view of Parliament it is necessary that these traps should be used in circumstances which involve as little risk as possible of suffering to the animal.
§ Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD NEWTONI move to omit from the proposed new clause the word "competent."
§
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
To omit the word ("competent").—(Lord Newton.)
LORD SAYE AND SELEI do not see any object in omitting the word "competent." It is obvious what is meant.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI do not think the noble Lord would gain very much by omitting the word, and it might open the door to culpable negligence by the sending of a child.
§ On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
§ On Question, proposed new clause agreed to.
§ Clause 11:
§ Appeals.
§ 11.—(1) An appeal shall lie from any conviction or order (other than an order for the destruction of an animal) by a court of summary jurisdiction under this Act to quarter sessions.
§ (2) Where there is an appeal by the owner of an animal from any conviction or order by a court of summary jurisdiction under this Act, the court may direct that the recognisance inquired to be entered into under subsection (3) of section thirty-one, which relates to procedure on appeal to general or quarter sessions, of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1870, shall include an undertaking not to sell or part with the animal until the appeal is determined or abandoned, and to produce it before or at or after the hearing of the appeal if ordered by the court of quarter sessions to do so, in accordance with the order.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYThe Bill provides that where there is a case before the Court the animal shall be produced if such production is possible without cruelty. The right of appeal is given, and there again the animal can be brought before the Court, but at the Court of Appeal there is 764 no provision for its being produced "if such production is possible without cruelty." I think this provision is just as necessary before the Court of Appeal as in the other case.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, after ("order") insert ("and if such production is possible without cruelty").— (The Earl of Derby.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 14:
§ Application to Ireland.
§ 14. This Act in its application to Ireland shall be subject to the following modifications, namely:—
- (1) (a) Section twenty-three of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851 (which gives a right of appeal), shall apply as respects any conviction or order under this Act (other than an order for the destruction of an animal, notwithstanding that the fine imposed does not exceed twenty shillings or that the term of imprisonment imposed docs not exceed one month;
- (b) A reference to section twenty-four of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, shall be substituted for the reference to subsection (3) of section thirty-one of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.
- (2) Nothing in section six of this Act shall prevent owners or occupiers of land in Ireland from laying or causing 1o be laid any poison or poisonous matter as therein described, after a notice has been posted in a conspicuous place, and notice in writing has been given to the nearest constabulary station.
§
LORD SAYE AND SELE had the two following Amendments on the Paper to this clause—
Page 8, line 35, after ("six") insert ("which relates to poisoned grain and flush, &c.,")
Page 8, line 38, after ("described") insert ("other than strychnine or any compound of which strychnine forms an ingredient.")
§ The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move these Amendments.
LORD SAYE AND SELEIt was the opinion of the promoters of this Bill that the use of strychnine was excessively cruel, but on examination it was discovered that there was no possible way of avoiding it; in fact, that any other method would be more cruel.
§ Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 156.)