Star.
London, England, 1824-02-12 00:00:00

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) said, before he proceeded
to make the Motion of which he had given notice he
begged leave to offer a few words in explanation of
the object of the amendment he was about to propose in
the law which he had brought in two years ago. That
law enacted a punishment for the ill-treatment of cat-
tle; and the object of his amendment would be to pre-
vent cruelty to other animals which were not included in
that law ; for he knew no reason why other animals, dogs
for instance,which were must u-eful animals, should not
have the same protection and privileges as cattle.—
They were all aware of the atrocious cruelties that were
often practised upon dogs and other animals, daily in-
stances cf which were recorded in all the Newspapers.
It was but the other day that he saw in the public pa-
pers an account of a fishmonger pouring a cauldron of
boiling water over a dog that belonged to him, and
leaving him to expire in the most cruel tortures; and
he had read and heard of frequent instances of vitriol
being thrown upon dogs, by which they were dread-
fully scalded, and suffered the most horrid pain. It was
to prevent such atrocities as these that he proposed to
amend the Act now in force, leaving to the Committee
the settling of what animals should be added. Another
alteration he had to propose, to which he did not sup.
pose there could be any objection, was, to make the
wanton ill-treatment of animals a misdemeanour, for
which the party should be liable to be sent for trial be-
fore a Jur y. This he proposed to do without taking
away the summary jurisdiction by which, under the
present law, an offender might at once be convicted
before a Magistrate and fined five pounds. This he
considered a very proper mode of dealing with an or-
dinary case of ill-treatment of a horse or other animal,
such as were commonly to be witnessed in the streets.
But there were cases of cruelty which no one would deny
were deserving of a much heavier punishment, and for
which it would, therefore, be extremely proper to send
the offender before a Jury for trial. Such was the case.
which he had lately read of the deliberately driving a
number of horses one after another into a fire, and
burning them to death, which he believed to have ac-
tually taken place ; and such also were cases which he
bad frequently heard of, where a horse's tongue had
been torn out by the roots, and many others which he
could mention. He, therefore, moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to amend the Act of last Session respecting the
cruel treatment of cattle.
The Honourable Member having made his motion'
but not being prepared with a seconder, a pause of a
few minutes occurred, during which he addressed him-
self to several Members near him, apparently to request
some of them to second his motion,which they appeared
to decline, at length,
Lord STANLEY seconded the motion, which was
then put and carried.
BEAMIAITING.
Mr. MARTIN then moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to prevent Bear-baiting and other cruel practices.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he was prepared to do the
most ample justice to the humanity of the Honourable
Member's motives for bringing forward the measure
which he had just propOsed. The object war one of a

very praiseworthy description; but at the same time so
important in its nature, that he thought the Honourable
Member ought not to ask leave to bring in his Bill with-
out entering more at large into an exposition of his
views, and of the extent to s hich it was his intention to
carry them. He thought, if his Honourable Friend pro-
posed that all pain inflicted on animals, except for the
purpose of destroying them, should be made punish-
able, that was a fair statement of a geckeral principle,
upon which he could have no objection= to enter into
discussion. But if it was meant to limit tte application
of the law, as from the terms of the motion it seemed
to be, to the practice of worrying bears and other ani-
mals, for the amusement of a particular description of
persons, it should not be forgotten, that while they
were punishiag those persons for cruelty to animals,
they were themselves guilty of the same things. He
could not forget that among the foremostof the grounds
urged for the refusal to amend the Game Laws was—
that the amusement derived from shooting and hunting
was one of the principal inducements to country gentle-
men to reside on then estates. It was impossible to deny
that there was as much cruelty in wounding a bird by
shooting for sport, as in the infliction of pain on any
other description of animal for amusement in any other
way. lf, therefore, the object of the Honourable Gen-
tleman was to prevent or punish wanton cruelty or the
infliction of pain on animals for the amusement of hu-
man beings, let him go further. Let him introduce a
Bill to abolish shooting ai.d fox-hunting, which were
the amusements of the higher orders, as well as bear-
baiting -and dog-fighting, which were the sports of per-
sons in mote humble circumstances. There was no

reason why-even hawking and fi,hing should not also
be included in the prohibition; for each of these unques-
tionably was accompanied with much pain to the victims
of the sport. If the principle of the honourable Mem-
ber was to punish the infliction of pain on animals for
human amusement; it ought to be carried to that extent;
for if they selected particular instances, it would be
opening a door to injustice and oppressinn, and on those
grounds he should oppose the introduction of the Bill.
Air. MARTIN begged leave to offer a few words in
defence of his Bill, against the observations of the Hight
Honourable Gentleman. With regard to shooting and
hunting he placed them on a vet y different footing from
bull-baiting, bear-baiting, dog-lighting, monlrey-fight•
ing, and badger•baiting, which it was the object el his
Bill to prevent. He was ready to admit, with .his
ho-
nourable Friend, that inasmuch as they all inflicted
pain on the animals, they were all cruel, and he should
be willing to abolish them all, if die general opini-n
would go along with him. But shooting and hunting
were generally viewed in a very different light from'
those other practices which be had mentioned, and
therefore he proposed to abolish all those which the
public opinion would go along with him in thinkiny
ought to be abolished. Ile bad received a variety of
letters on this subject from a great number of persons
with whom he had a correspondence in all parts of the
Kingdom ; and (ye could assure the Right Honourable
Gentleman that there was hardly a town or a place in
England which was not ready to Petition in favour of
the two Bills which he had moved for leave to bring
in. But if, as the Right Honourable Gentleman had
stated, he (Mr. Martin) had one step further to go be-
fore he could bring in his Bill, the Right Honourable
Gentleman ought, on the same principle, to go one step
further before be opposed the motion. Bull-baiting
was already prohibited by the Act for punishing cruelty
arid ill-treatment of cattle. The other practices to which

his measure applied were also prohibited in a particular
district, by a local Act of Pariiament. The Act called
the Mary-la-bonne Act prohibited bull-baiting, bear-
baiting, dog-fighting, and monkey-fighting, within the
parish of Mary-la-bonne, and made them punishable.,
The Right Honourable Gentleman must, therefore, on
his own argument, move for the iepeal of that Act, un-
less he would consent to extend its operation.
Mr. LOCKHART said, he thought he could relieve
the Honourable Membet from the necessity of pressing
his motion to a division. He had stated that bull-bait-
ing was already punishable by the Act for punishing
ill-treatment and ci uelty to cattle, and he had already
obtained leave to amend that Act by a Bill for punish-
ing wanton cruelty to other animals, which would of
course in like manner include those practices which it
was the object of his present motion to prevent.
Mr.MARTIN then said, he would withdraw his mo-
tion on the suggestion of his Honourable Ft lend.