The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-24 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Sir E. FILMER presented a petition from the metro-
polis against the post horse duty; also petitions from
West Kent against the hop duty and the Maynooth
grant.
Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition from Dundee
against the Maynooth grant.
Mr. J. H. HAMILTON presented a petition from St.
Albans against the coal duty imposed by the Corpora-
tion of Loudon. _ _

Mr. W. WILLIAMS presented a petition from Mr.
Rigby Wason, complaining that grants of land in the
New Foreet had been given to certain noblemen and
gentlemen.
Mr. SPOONER presented petitions from places in
W arwickshite and Lincolnshire, and also from Kingston-
upon-Thames and the metropolis against the Maynooth
grant.
Mr. H. WILLYAMS presented a petition from Truro
against the war in South Africa.
Mr. GEORGE DUNCAN presented a petition from
the Presbytery of the Free Church at Dundee, against
the Maynooth grant.
Mr. FARNHAM presented a petition from the post-
masters of Loughborough, praying the immediate repeal
of the post-horse auties.
PROTECTION FROM DANGEROUS ANIMALS

_ _
BILL.
Mr. FREWEN, in moving the second reading of this
Bill, said its object was to extend the power now exist-
ing in the metropolitan police dist: iets for the destruc-
tion of dangerous animals, to the rural districts of the
country. His constituents were much annoyed, and put
to great inconvenience iu consequence of the law
not giving them any protection against the
attacks or mad dogs and infuriated bulls.
These grivances, however, were not confined to Sussex,
but were felt throughout the .country; he theretore
hoped there would be no objection to the short measure
he now proposed to remedy the nuisance.
Sir F. TBESIGEB said he had not been aware until
that moment of the public being so entirely unprotected
against the attacks of dangerous animals; but he doubted
whether the propositions of the Hon. Member were the
most satisfactory for attaining the object he had in view.
He proposed to give to other persons than the owner
the right of disposing of an animal of this
description. Two credible witnesses were in
the first instance to go to a magistrate and de-
pose they had seen a mad dog, but, while on this mis-
sion, it might in the meantime be ranging about the
parish at large, biting other animals, and perhaps many
people. lie was then to give them a written mandate,
which they were to deliver to the constable of the parish,
who thereupon would go in search of the dog, and if
he succeeded in slaying it he was to get a reward of
.2s. 6d., a kind of head money to stimulate him in
his exertions. Then it was required that in
certain cases all the dogs in a parish should
be muzzled, Gut it was a great hardship
to deprive innocent and well-behaved dogs of the pro
tection which nature afforded them to protect themselves
against the attacks of mad dogs or other dangerous
animals. The Hon. Member's Bill brought to his
mind the story of the quaker, who, in riding through
a village, was met by a whelping cur, to whom
he said, " I cannot kill thee, but I will give thee a bad
name," whereupon he raised the cry of mad dog, and
the villagers being alarmed came out and knocked
the dog upon the head.--A laugh.) He did
not think this was a subject in which there
was the least necessity for legislation. The
Learned Gentleman then alluded to the other pro-
visions of the Bill, and concluded by moving that it be
read a second time this day six months.
Mr. SPOONER said the Learned Gentleman had

amused the House by his entertaining speech, but he
had tailed to point out any fault in the Bilt which might
not be amended in Committee. The employment of
dogs in carts was a dangerous and increasing evil in the
country, and if not prohibited, ought to be paced under
some better control.

Mr. EWAR r opposed the Bill, considering that it
would not accomplish the object of the Hon. Member,
and would act very unjustly in its operation.
Mr. DEEDES said great doubt existed whether there
was any law which authorised magistrates to order the
destruction of unmuzzled dugs in hot weather, but for
his part he thought the magistracy ought to possess
such a power, and he hoped it would be formally sanc-
tioned by the Legislature. He did not wish to abolish
dog-carts in the country, but they ought to be placed
under the control of the police, for many of the carts
contained false bottoms, and they were frequently used
for feloitious purposes.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. ELLIS thought it was high time that dog-
carts were put a stop to. They were not permitted
within the borough of Leicester, and he believed there
was not an inhabitant of that borough who was not
thankful that such a bye law existed iu their town.
Mr. WODEUOUSE supported the Bill.
Colonel THOMPSON was apprehensive that this Bill
would endanger public liberty in reference to dog-carts.
the dog cart interest was not represented in that House,
and he was informed it wculd be LaurificA.—(A laugh.)
They heard a good deal of the danger to life from the use
of dog carts, but there is just as much danger resulting
from the use of high spirited horses.—(Hear, hear.)
There was an impression abroad that dogs were intended
for uses of burden and drawing, but an anecdote which
castle under his notice in the colonies, would illustrate
r the fallacy of the objection. A Governor of a colony
wished to impress his subjects with the belief that bul-
locks could be rendered serviceable at the plough,
and he made use of some on his own grounds.AlasB A
Maroon captain then came to him, and said, "
to .a,
God-amighty never intended the bulllied,
the work of a 'oss," but the Governor
lip
will
"Captain Palmer, let us see if
a duu on it
do the work of a horse, and if he depenhearp, and
he was intended for the purpoEe."—
been fairly heard in the House.—(
Ilearbat some regula-
tion Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought so too,
laughter.) He was afraid the dog-cariiiiriebt:erraters.; had not
uelty to the dog and
—(Hear, hear.) A horse had
accidents in the highways..
dog in a cart, and
a great antipathy to meeting a
ought to be made to pievont cr
continually • the
(Terming
allowed.—(Hear, Ilear
in districts where clog-carts were a
, hear.)
however, no advocate for their abolition, but
He was, them placed underproper consequence was, accidents were
simply anxious to see
Hear, bear.)
RATES BILL.
After--
a few words from Mr. PAC
(RE and Mr. FR
Billthemwoatsibowenairtoh.)fdrmawr.n.FßEsuiEL
of this Bill was dDisc' EWEN,
htahregemcLotainodn
tieTn
oshi:
referred to a Select Committee.
fortbe tßheillseocrodnedredreatodinbge
PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
Mr.
second
VERNONn Id)
re
di
ng
dbeteh❑nerequested to move
"in'oOwtild beNoble Lord the
Member for
the City of of '
Bill by London, and as the Bill was
supportednooppositionbythotoGito.LezHmeeanr,t,hehaer.)hoped there
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was true the
Government approved of this Bill, but they reserved to
themselves the right of making alterations in the Bill
when it got into Committee.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP denounced the measure as a
mean and shabby affair. The poet said conscience made
cowards of us all, and as the promoters of this Bill had
been guilty of corrupt practices, their consciences had
frightened them into this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He did
not wish to bribe any man, but whenever he had the
opportunity he would treat his friends and assist his
poor supporters, as he believed it was his duty to do it.
Why should a Bill be passed to prohibit him from dis-
tributing his bounties to those who deserved and re-
quired it? Why, if this Bill passed it would be dan-
gerous for him to offer any ti his supporters a pinch of
tt
iiT as for relieving the distress of
any of
might meet with in the course of
any
themA l a uwghhi)e
m
his visite, it would be quite out of the ques-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) He would be no party to
such a Bill as this, and though the House might pass it
he would distribute his bounties in spite of it, when any
of his friends and supporters wanted it.—(Hear.)
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Friday next.
COMMON LAW FEES REGULATION BILL.

On the motion for th, committal of this Bill,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it would be his
duty to oppose some of the clauses in the Bill, and ho
suggested therefore that the Committee should be post-
poned.