The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-24 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 21.

(Continued from our Afternoo❑ Edition of yesterday.)
SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOLIS) BILL.
On the motion that this Bill be read a second time,
Mr. Hindley, Sir W. Hall, Lord Robert Grosvenor,
and several other Members, presented petitions from
Finsbury, Islington, Marylebone, and several other por-
tions of the metropolis, in favour of the Bill. One of
these especially Mr. Hindley wished to draw attention to.
It was numerously signed by the shopmen of Lambeth,
and stated that they had time neither for recreation or
improvement, or for attending upon Divine worship.
Sir G. GREY trusted that the Hon. Member would
not, at this period of the session press this Bill upon
the House, as it was evident that there was a perfect
impossibility of its passing through the House
this session, and the debate upon it would in all
probability prevent the discussion upon those Bills which
might possibly become law at the end of the session.
Mr. HINDLEY said, that on the 12th of July last
year he had agreed to postpone the details of his Bill
till the present session, the principle having already been
affirmed, and the Right lion. Baronet having stated that
he would speak to Mr. Waddington on the subject.
When he ...me to town at the begiaaing of the present
session, he had called at the Home-office, but could
get no decisive determination from the Government,
or the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), on whose
support he was aware he must rely. He found that the
Right Hon. Baronet had not spoken to Mr. Waddington
at all. He had himself written to the Right Hon. Baro-
net on three subjects. On two of these he got replies,
but none upon this. He had been desirous to bring in
the Bill as early as possible ; but the Hon. Member for
Honiton (Mr. Locke) had a Bill of a somewhat antago-
nistic nature upon the paper, and as ho wished each of
the Bills to be discussed upon its own merits, he had,
therefore, postponed his own Bill.
Sir G. GREY said that he was by no means unfriendly
to the principle of the Bill; but the peculiarity was that
all the difficulty lay in the details, and if the Hon.
Member would postpone the Bill and bring it on early
in the next session, he would give it his best con-
sideration.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that he thought the responsi-
bility of withdrawing this Bill ought not to lay upon the
Right Hon. Baronet, or even upon the Government, for
the matter was more the business of the House than

theirs.
Lord Dudley Stuart, Lord Robert Grosvenor. Sir W.
Clay, and Mr. Disraeli, severally made appeals to the
Hon. Member to withdraw the Bill.
Mr. LAW thought that it would be better to divide at
once than have a discussion which led to nothing.
Mr. BARING WALL then moved that the debate
be adjourned till Wednesday week.
After some hesitation the House divided, when there
appeared
For the adjournment of the debate 56
Agaits t it 25
Majority
The Bill is consequently lost, as it is understood that
the House will be adjourned on the day specified, or on
the day before it.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

The House then went into Committee on the Cruelty
to Animals Bill, when considerable discussion ensued
upon the legal effect of much of the phraseology of the
Bill, during which the Attorney-General suggested so
veral verbal alterations. After some objections as to
the difficulty of wording the third clause, it was struck
out.

On the motion of Mr. HENRY, the following clause
was introduced, a conversation having ensued as to the
amount of the penalty to be levied, and it was
ultimately reduced from ten to five pounds:—
" And be it enacted, that if at any time after
the passing of this Act any person shall ride, or, being
the owner, shall permit any other person to ride, any
animal in any steeple-chase, or other race in which
any hedges, fences, walls, hurdles, or other erec-
tions, or any ditches, dykes, streams, brooks, or
rivers, are intended to be leaped or jumped over
by the animal 3 engaged in such steeple-chase or
other race as aforesaid, then and in every such case, if
any damage or injury shall occur or be occasioned to
such animal whilst engaged in such steeple-chase or other
race as aforesaid, every such person shall be deemed to
have wantonly and cruelly used such animal, and for
every such offence shall forfeit and pay a penalty of
five pounds."...

On clause 8, which proposed some regulations for se-
curing the cleanliness of cattle being put, it was sug-
gested that its continuance was only calculated to throw
ridicule upon the Bill, and it was accordingly withdrawn.
On clause 11, which instituted a penalty of 101. for
cruelty committed in slaughtering cattle, being put,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that it
should be five pounds instead of ten.
Tho alteration was adopted.
On clause 15 being put, the object of which is to re-
gulate the carriage of cattle and sheep by railway,
Mr Alderman COPELAND said that there could be
no greater cruelty inflicted than that which might b:
market, and he hoped that a clause would be introduced
witnessed daily in the carriage of calves to Smithfield-
market,
to meet the case.
Sir G. GREY said that he believed the offence was
covered by the provision of the seventh clause.
To this Mr. Ellis, Sir W. Molesworth, Mr. Palmer,
and other Members objected; the House was cleared for
a division, as to whether the clause should be retained
in its present shape, but the objections were withdrawn,
and the clause agreed to.
On the interpretation clause being put, in consequence
of an observation made by the Attorney-General,
n the
that consideration
three.
four
fourths
s theo
Mr. STUART suggested that the description of ani-
mals intended to be included under the protection of the
ma-
gistrate. Itthedifficulties which were experienced from Acts of Parlia-
ment arose from these interpretation clauses, and he was,
therefore, anxious that this clause should be left out
Bill might bewas
safweleylllekfntotwo
altogether.
After observations from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and
the Marquis of WORCESTER, the clause was agreed to.
Sir G. CLERK then rose to move that the operation
of this Bill should not extend to Scotland. He said that
there would be some doubt from the term United King-
dom being used as to whether the Bill extended into
Scotland
.or not. He was happy to say that they did
not need a special statute on this subject in that country,
and if the Bill were to be extended to it there would be
a necessity to alter the phraseology of the Bill from first
to last.

The ATTORNEY•GENERAL said that the Bill was
not formally expressed as being extended to Scotland,
but that the fines would be leviable in that country as
well as in this.

In consequenco of the observation of nu Hem MEM-.
WEB,

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said ho was not aware
that there was any peculiar cruelty practised in Scot-
land. If the Hon. Member knew of such, he was bound,
as a Scotch Member, to bring in a Bill to amend the evil.
Mr. BROWN then read a letter from Scotland which
st•)ted seveal instances of cruelty is that country, and
adduced legal opinions to show that the law there was
perfectly inefficient for the, repression of that crimi-
nality.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the machiaery
of the Bill would not work in Scotland.

Mr. W. BROWN then withdrew his opposition to the
further progress of the Bill, and said that in a future
session he would bring in a Bill with respect to Scotland.
Mr. HENRY then moved, at tho end of the third
clause to insert the following :—" And be it enacted,
that if at any time after the passing of this Act
any person shall ride, or being the owner, shall permit
any other person to ride, any animal in any steeple-
chase or other race in which any hedges, fences, walls,
hurdles, or other erections; or any ditches, dykes, streams,
brooks, or rivers, are intended to be leaped or jumped over
by the animals engaged in such steeple-chase or other
race as aforesaid, then, and in every such case, if
any damage or injury shall occur or be oc-
casioned to such animal whilst engaged in such
steeple-chase or other race as aforesaid, every
such person shall be deemed to have wantonly and
cruelly used such animal, and for every offence shall
forfeit and pay a penalty of 1001. The lion. Member
denounced steeple-chasing as cruel and unfeeling, and
said that it should be put a stop to by a heavy penalty.
Sir C. BURRELL thought that cases in which horses
were backed to perform unusual feats on the high road
should be included in the clause. He greatly approved
of the clause.

Mr. MACKINNON had introduced no less than
twelve years ago a Bill to prevent cruelty to animals;
and such being the case, it could not be said of him
that he would advocate that which was cruel. He
thought, however, that this clause would injure the Bill
altogether; for it would be said if steeple-chasing was
cruel, so also was horse racing and hunting. In fact,
if that clause was adopted, persons would be afraid of
galloping in the Park.—(Hear, hear.) He should,
therefore, divide the House upon the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, though he did not
approve of the clause in its preseat shape, for it did not
make as it ought to do steeple chasing illegal, would vote
for it if the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lymington
divided the House against it. He thought it better to
declare by the clause that every person engaged in
steeple-chasing should be deemed guilty .of cruelty to
animals.

Mr. ELLIS supported the clause, and deprecated the
practiceofsteeple-chasing..

Mr. R. PALMER thought that steeple-chasing ought
to be put a stop to, but he was much afraid the clause ai
it stood would interfere with gentlemen racing with their
horses in an open meadow.

Mr. F. FRENCH could not see the cruelty of steeple-
chasing, for the horse was often as much excited as his
rider.—(L au gh ter.)
Mr. LAW thought that steeplechasing ought to be
put down, and suggested that the words " cruelly over-
riding" would meet the views of the lion. Member.
Colonel THOMPSON remarked that the words over-
driving included, in his opinion, over-riding. He thought
it better to leave the propriety of steeple-chasing to pub-
lic opinion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NE WDEG ATE thought steeple-chasing a low
sport, and the sooner it was put a stop to the
better. He thought if it was left to the decree of public
opinion, it would soon become obsolete.
Mr. HENRY said he would adopt the amendment
suggested by the Attorney-General.
Mr. W. EVANS thought the sport of steeple-chasing
anything but manly. It they did not put it down it
might be said that they legislated in that House against
the poor and for the rich.

Mr. B. DENISON had an utter contempt for steeple-
chasing, but ho doubted the policy of legislating to put
it down.

The Marquis of WORCESTER opposed the clause,
as likely to endanger the Bill, though he by no means
approved of steeple-chasing. _

After some observation's' from Mr. Mackinnon, Mr.
Stuart Wortley, and Mr. Heywood,
Mr.?. PI YSE said he had ridden many steeple-chases,
and could not agree that it was a cruel sport.
After a few words from Mr. LAW and Mr. ELLIOTT,
strangers were ordered to withdraw. The Committee
divided, when there appeared—

For the clause.:. 50
Against it ... 58
Majority against the clause ... 8
The clause was consequently lost.

The other clauses Were then agreed to, the Bill
passed through Committee, and the report was ordered
to be received tomorrow.
The House then resumed.
PROTECTION OF WOMEN BILL.