The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-22 00:00:00

The Ustiodas_

Ptelelsielmi they only claimed the privilege being -
marteelle aewedleg to their interpretation of the Sairstres.—
The Wet.i Miltienity he considered was essepiesely explained
by the 1M el do lege King, so that ne doubt etenelesd ee that
Mr. ROBBRTSON apprehended serious evils teem a system
el innovation. He regretted to observe, that greet efforts were
Making to diminith the influence of the Church both in England
sod Ireland. Before the House sanctioned such Abets, they should
ellbaider the state of this country before the Church was established
by law.
Mr. W. SMITE! briefly explained ; after which the petition
yes brought up, and ordered to lie on the table.
NEWSPAPERS BILL.
Upon the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER, the House respired itself into a Committee on the News-
papers Hill.
The several clauses were agreed to, and the Report ordered to be
received to-morrow.

--------------
WEST INDIA CLERGY BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the Or-
der of the Day for the third reading of the West India Clergy
Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER introduced a
clause, providing that the salaries of the Clergy holding under this
Bill shoul•1 be paid out of the di per cents.
The Bill was then read a thitd time and passed.
PILOTAGE BILL.
Mr. C. GRANT moved the Order of the Day for the third reed-
ing of the Pilotage Bill, which was read a third time and paired.

PUBLIC ROAD BILL (IRELAND).
Mr. GOULBURN brought up the Report of the Public Road
Bill (Ireland).
The Report was ordered to be recommitted to a Committee of the
whole !louse.
The House thereupon resolved itself into a Committee, and the
several clauses having been read, the House resumed, and the
Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
GLASS DUTIES DILL.
Upon the motion of Mr. BERRIES, the Glass Duties Bill was
read a third time and passed.
PLATE DUTIES TRANSFER BILL.
Dr. PHI LLIMORE hrpught up the Report of the Plate Duties
Transfer Bill, which was ordered to be read a third time to-
morrow._

TEMPORARY CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.
Dr. PHIL LIMORE brought up the Report of the Temporary
Customs Duties Bill, which was ordered to be read a third time on
Friday.
DUBLIN WIDE STREETS BILL.
Mr. GOULBURN moved the Order of the Day for the House
resolving itself into a Committee on the Dublin Wide Streets Bill,
which went through a Committee, and the Report was ordered to
be received on Friday.
CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Upon the motion of Mr. BERRIES, the Customs Consolidation
Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be recommitted on
Thursday.
GOODS WAREHOUSING BILL.
The third reading of the Goods Warehousing Bill wee post-
poned to Thursday next.

PILOTS AND PILOTAGE.
Mr. C. GRANT brought up a Bill, for better regulating the
Law respecting Pilots and Pilotage, which was read a first time,
and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.

CRUEL TREATMIRNT OF CATTLE BILL.
Mr. It. MARTIN moved the Order of the Day for the *soma
reading of the Cruel Treatment to Cattle Bill.

The A TTORNEY.GENF.RA L opposed the second reading of
this Bill, because an Act had been introduced the Session before the
last, hy the Honourable Member for Knsreeborouih (SirJ. Mack-
intosh) which enacts, that cruelly maiming animals shall be a
transportable offence. The Honourable Member ( Mr. Martin)
did not mean to repeal the lion. Member for Knarealxwough's Bill,
or to mitigate the punishment affixed to it, and vet his Bill pro-
vided, that cruelty to animals should be punished as a misdemea-
nour. 'The Hon. Member for Galway would therefore substitute a
milder punishment, which clearly was not his intention, though
such was the construction of his Bill. This involved a manifest
inconsistence, and therefore in his (the Attorney-General's) opi-
nion, the Bill, in its present form, should not pass the House.
Mr. MARTIN said, the Bill before the House was in fact the
Bill of the Attorney-General himself. The Attorney-General had
consulted with him (Mr. Martin) on drawing it up. (A laugh.) It
was at the suggestion of the Attorney-General he had introduced
the words " cutting and maiming," which his Right Honourable
Friend (the Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Peel) ob.
jetted to, because, in his opinion, the word cutting made it a mis-
demeanour to cut off' the ears of a puppy dog. The clause to
which the Attorney-General now objected, was only an emendation
of his own absurdity. The Attorney-General's Bill was declared
to be an absurditynn the Lords; but as the clause which he (Mr.
Martin) proposed to remedy that absurdity was now objected to.
he was willing, and would be satisfied to produce the Bill which
was rejected by the Lords, to compare it with the present Bill, and
to strike out every thing in the -present Bill which varied from the
Bill sent to the Lords. The on}' material addition in the present
Bill was the *loose to protect those useful and necessary animals,
dogs. He did hot know why fhe Attorney-General now differed
from a Bill, which was in principle precisely the same as that which
he had before mentioned. Ile might have altered his opinion on
the former Bill it was true, but why did he within thirty-six
home offer to support the present Bill, If he (Mr. Martin) agreed to
withdraw his Bill, for giving felons the benefit orCounsel ? If Go-
vernment, and individuals connected with it, continue to act in
this manner, the public would soon begin to perceive, that the
House of Commons was a bad %Anal for the education of a Judge.
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL said the Bill formerly intro-
duced by the Ilonourahie Member for Galway, was thrown out in
the Lords, because the Honourable Member neglected to suit it to
the existing law. Cruelty to animals, by the Act of Charles IL,
wax not a felony, unless there was a malicious intention to the
owner. By the Honourable Member for Knaresborough's Aet,
maiming of animals was made • felony. although no malicious
intention was proved. The Honourable Member for Galway was
not aware of this enactment, bat had followed the words of the
Act of Charles. The Honourable Member's present Bill says
nothing of the repeal of Sir J. Mackintosh's Act, but yet it
makes that offence only a misdemeanor, which Sir J. Mackintosh's
Act had made a felony.
Mr. MARTIN explained.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said it was quite clear that a remedy ex.
isted against the offence complained of. He was therefore of opi-
nion, that any new provision to meet that offence, was altogether
unnecessary.
SirJ. SHELLEY mid the House was evidently debating on an
offence for which an adequate remedwalready existed.
Mr. T. WILSON thought a mode may be devised for reconcil-
ing the humane intentions of the Honourable Member for Galway
with the legal objections of the A ttorriey-Getteral. He suggested
that the offence% specified in the Honourable Gentleman's Bill
should be punished as felonies, and not as misdemeanors. it
was worded according to this suggestion, he taw no objection to the
Hon. Mernher's Bill.

31r. GOLII,BURN said the question was, whether the offences
specified in the Honourable Member's Bill, and the Act of the
Honourable Member for Knaresborough, should be in future
punished as felonies or as misdemeanors. In his opinion the more
advisable ccurve was to leave the law as it at present stood. If the
present law was not sufficient, the proper course would be to move
the repeal of the Honourable Member for Knaresbomugh's Act,
and when that waft repealed, to introduce the present Bill. To pass
the prevent Bill wlfilst Sir J. Maekintosh's Act remained in the
Statute Book unrepealed, would be inconsistent with every prin.
ciple of sound legislation.
After a new words from Mr. poxes and Mr. S. RICE,
The House divided, when there appeared
Against the second reading 27 f For it 18 Majority 9.