The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-14 00:00:00

•
ture," which some Hon. Members thought was riot sufficient
explicit.
Captain PECHELL suggested that a few hours more should be
added to the " twenty-four hours'without food," as it was sceg
:l
known that in the Zoological Gard,,ns, which gentlemen wen' i
the habit of visiting of a Sunday, that monkeys, cats, and °ther
aiin-.t.tls of that sort, were
.kept twenty-four hours without fon"
without any'inconvenience.
After a few words from Lord MAHON,
Mr. ROEBUCK moved the omission of the word " wantonli
in the second line of the clause. What they wanted to do %SS tat
prevent cruelty to animals, but wantonly beating was very difficult
to define. A coachman sitting on his box might strike his horses
for want of something else to do, and that might be construed into
wantonly beating them.
The O'CONNOR DON—They had better keep the law in the
same state as it was at present, and substitute " and " for
Agreed to.
Major. :BEAUCLERK enquired whether horse-racing sou
ld
come under this clause.
Mr. PEASE—No. It is excepted.
An HON. MEMBER said horse-racing was to be excepted. NI
it was well known that one of the best horses now on the tut"
which had never been whipped but once, would not run at all un-
less the spur was applied to him pretty severely. Now who was I°f
be the judge in such a case? Would they leave it to a majority
those on the course to decide whether such spurring did not ea°
under the description of torture mentioned in the clause?
Mr. VILLIERS (we believe) wanted to know what was wont
by a domestic animal. They could not take one step in this claws
without getting into difficulties.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M'KINNON said the domestic animal was already do;
fined—it was any animal kept in the House, or in an outhouse 5'
the dwelling.

Mr. VIELIERS had an animal which he kept in an outhouse,
and which Was perfectly tame, yet he did not feed him once ill S
week. He kept a large eagle, and he wanted to know whether be
would not be considered as being guilty of cruelty if he did not std
him when he had no occasion for food?
Tl.e word " carelessness" was then struck out.
Mr. WARBURTON objected to the words " if any driver,hill
in ,anywise misbehave himself in the driving of such cattle," thes°
words were so very indefinite, that he would move that they 1)8
omitted.

Mr. WILKS said that the object was to prevent mischief beil
done by improper driving. It was perfectly true that the 1,113
whose property might suffer would have a remedy by an action at
lsw, but this clause provided a less expensive mode of obtaining re'
compense.

After a few words from Sir S. WHALLEY,,which were net
heard in the Gallery,
Major HANDLEY said he could not conceive any clause in the
Bill more useful than the present, for so long as that moral nni'l
sance, Smithfield, remained—( Loud cries of "Hear," and laughter)
—the public would have no protection against the misconduct 0'
drivers.— ( Hear. )
Mr. ROEBUCK objected to the clause as an infringement WI
the liberty of the subject.
Mr. WOOD explained.
Colonel SIBTHORP said there was an Act already in existence,
by which drovers were liable to a penalty of Si. for any damage
done to or by the cattle through the misconduct of the driver.
Mr. ROEBUCK'S objection to the clause was that a person
might be sent to prison by a single Magistrate upon the evidence
of a single witness.
Mr. PRYME did not think it would make much differ
whether the charge was made before one or two Magistrates. t
question was whether these words should be allowed to stand.
An Hox. MEAtzEa wished to know if the fine was to be lien.l
ted to Si., because a bull might be driven into a china shop s'
damage done to the amount of 5001.
Mr. WARBURTON would recommend that a short-ht,
writer should be set to follow one of those drovers, to
take doh
his every word, act, and even gesture, and he doubted
whether
some persons would not consider every one of them to amount!.
cruelty and misbehaviour; They should consider. how really gut,
ficult it was to manage these animals.--(A laugh.) These dray%
had certainly great command over their animals--at first'
sight it might appear to arise from cruelty, and they certainly best
the animals very hard, but it was absolutely necessary to do ee.
He would propose to leave out the words, " or if any driver mists
have himself in the driving of cattle, &c., by driving in a crab
manner; or so as to cause unnecessary torture or pain to sue
animal." • •
Sir S. WHALLEY supported the amendment, because he enlv
sidered the words mere surplusage, and nonsensical.
Mr. PEASE agreed to omit the words, which were according I
ordered to be omitted.

. Mr. WARBURTON—The words that followed were liable to
the same difficulty. Let them look at the manner in which cal
were carried—they must be in a state of torture all the time. :A
they passed this clause, and went a month after to the RomOvil:
road, they %sould see calves carried in the same manner as netie
The clause would be a dead letter—they could not enforce it. He
proposed to leave out this part of the clause--viz., that relating
the carriage of calves.
Sir S. WHALLEY supported the amendment. They 0ugb...,t1
make enactments as strict. as possible. As they had provided
Ste-
the torture of cattle, he did not see the use of these words.
Mr. MACKINNON—If they defined the laws they were
that they were unnecessarily strict, and if they left the wordili
general, they were told that they left too much to the discretion
the Magistrate.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. PRYME advised the Hon. Member for Durham to relsill
this part of the clause.
Mr. C. BERKELEY would ask whether, under this Act, tt°
parties—the master and servant--might not be punished for to'
same offence? He thought it better to punish the master. o
Mr. PEASE had no objection to the amendment of the t '
Hon. Member, but he certainly must resist the amendment of to
Hon. Member for Bridport, as he had received representatidoe
this subject innumerable.
Mr. Alderman WOOD had seen a lamb paraded about
streets in a machine. He supposed this was to try the experiew
of how they could best convey them to market.—(A laugh.)
Mr. ROEBUCK—The Hon. Gentleman has made a mistee,e
it was paraded as a sort of advertisement
...a. placard attached to IP
machine stated, " Our friends are within.'.'—(A laugh.)
The Committee, divided upon the amendment of Me, %Verblit'
ton, when there appeared—
For the Amendment
Against it
34
Majority for the Amendment .......
On our re-admission to the Gallery, we-found
Mr. ROEBUCK proposing an amendment to the effect, tbit
v.
persons committing offences against the Act should be tried be
the Sessions, and not by a single magistrate, as he had great objet'
tioes to magistrates having a mama- y juris( —( Cl.eers.)
Mr. MACKINNON opposed the amendment, not thinking it
necessary.
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY thought that one magistrate sao
quite sufficient, and -hoped therefore that the Hon. Alember'e
Bath would withdraw it.
Mr. PRYME had as great an objection as the Hon. Member 1:.°;
Bath to give summary jurisdiction to Magistrates, but in st
cases it was absolutely necessary. On the bringirg up of the 0';
port it was his intention to move the insertion of a clause, Riving
the party convicted the power of appealingito the Court of Sessioo
Mr. CURTEIS thought the fine of 51. much too large.
Mr. POTTER thought the fine should be reduced to 20s. a or
Mr. WILKV,S suggested that forty shillings be substitute
five pounds as the penalty.
Major BEAUCLERK thought one month's' imprisonment too
much ; he would suggest that seven days be substituted.
Mr. POTTER was of opinion, that twenty shillings 'would be
sufficient penalty, and would move an amendment to that effect. it
Mr. WILKES hoped the House would not consent to'reducere
to 20s. Suppose a brutal fellow would cruelly and wantonly injure valuable horse or otht r would '2os. be a sufficient cot'
pensation for the injury? •
Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY would vote for the fine being 4Cg:,
as the offender might also be required to pay any damage pees'
stoned by his offence.
A 'discussion then took place as to whether 20s. or 40s. should besubstituted for 51.

Co!onel SIBTHORP—Suppose the difference is divided, and
make it &X -

Mr. PEASE thought, that after having consented to reduce the
penalty to 405., he should not now be asked to reduce it to 20s•
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House dividew
when the nurnte;•s were—
For the Penalty of 40s .................. 52
For the Penalty of 20s

Majority for the 40a. Penalty
33
On our re-admission, we found

The O'CONNOR DON objecting to the manner in which "the
costs were alluded to in the clause, and he suggetted that some
specific sum should be named.
On the rnalon of Major BEAUCLERK, the punishment 0:21/
reduced from three months imprisonment to fourteen days.
The clause (2) as amended was then ordered to stand part 0(1,0
Bill

On the proposal of the third clause, authorising the Court °
Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, and Court of Quar.
ter Se: sions for other counties, to make rules and regulations,
Major BEAUCLERK proposed the omission of the clause.
Colon.l SIBTHORPE thtught the whole clause objectioaable:,
An Hox. MEmnEa said if this clause was removed there would
be no nezessity for any Ilill.
Mr. WILKS thought that large markets required some arrange'
mint rf this kind.

Mr. BULLER objected to the penalty, whether it was five
pounds or five pence. He objected to the clause altogether.
The amendment was agretd to.
On the clause as amended being put,
Major BEAUCLERK moved that the whole clause be omitted'
Mr. WARBURTON would vote against the clause.
Mr. RUTHVEN supported the motion amidst cries of "
vide." The reason why he voted against the clause was that
would incumber the statute with an ultra piece of legislation, whica
would be an inconvenience and an incumbrance.—(A laugh, an
cries of "Divide.")
.Mr. PEASE, seeing the sense of the House was against hie'
would move that clauses 3,4, and 5, be struck out of the Bill.
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY could not agree to clause 6, with
respect to the appointment of inspectors.
Mr. PEASE defended the clause. •
Colonel SIBTHORP thought the present clause was as objec;
tionable as the others that had been withdrawn • and if no °the
Member did, he would move that it should share the same fate. ~,
Mr. BAINES thought the system of inspection was liable.:
great objection ; and as the Hon. Member had sacrificed one seri;
of clauses, he would suggest to him that lie should also omit elm°
6,7, 8, and 9. —( Hear, and a laugh.)
Clause 6 was struck out, after some further discussion.
•
'I CHAIRMAN reported progress, and it being three o'clock_
the other orders of the day were postponed, and the House the',
adjourned.

We found much difficalty in ascertaining the numbers on the Wye d
divisions, as no officer was stationed in the Reporters' gallery, the
we were consequently obliged to go round on each occasion to 1;.
Members' entrance, and obtain the information from any
exit
Member who might be in the lobby. We trust some arrangeole'
will be made to remedy this inconvenience.

STEAM-CARRlAGES.—Yesterday morning a stool-
cart iage, on Mr. Gurney's principle, started from Hyde Paki,4
corner at seven o'clock, for Reading, distant 40 miles, whic
it reached in 3 hours and 15 minutes. It returned in the after,'
noon to London with 20 passengers, accomplishing the dig-
tance in 3 hours and 22 minutes.
SCOTCH AUTUMN CIRCUITS.— n
(Soul)—T,--iaa
nit
Justice Clerk and Lord Mackenzie. Ayr, Sept. 15 ; .11711:6
fries, 19 ; Jedburgh, 23. G. Napier, Esq., A.D.-0'
—Lords Gillies and Meadow bank. Inverary, Sept. 1. ; stir-
ling, 5;, Glasgow, 8. Cosmo hues, Esq., A.D.—(North)
----Lords Monereiff and. Medwyn. Inverness, Sept. 18;
Aberdeen, 23 ; Perth, 28. J. Shaw Stewart, Esq., A. D.
The week has passed over without further dis-
turbance at Bircham—Norfollt Mercury,