Star.
London, England, 1810-05-03 00:00:00

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

Lord ERSKINE gave notice, that he should move the second
reading of his Bill for preventing malicious and wanton Cruelty
to Animals on Monday, for which day the Lords were ordered
to be summoned.

TUE DUKE ON BRUNSWICK.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL presented a Message from kis Ma.
jesty relative to the Duke of Brunswick, (the same as that pre.
seated to the Commons on Monday) and moved that it be taken
into consideration to-morrow, and that the Lords be summoned.
—Ordered.

In answer to a question from Lord HOLLAND across the table,
The Earl of LIVERPOOL stated, that it was merely intend-
ed to move an address of general concurrence, without at present
pledging the House t• any particular measure.

Sle.,reserrie sod Lord eividereset, f to be se !Maim 111 the
essairs-illay;' a practice t the Miklos at which; in the
language of your Speaker& our ancestors would bait
with indignation.'
s' We therefore pray you to follow the example of your emu-
'lessors, to' expunge all your declarations, Orders, and resolutions
on the subject, as tending to the subversion of our liberties,' and
to the introduction of a military despotism, and to recall Sir Frau-
cis Burdett to the service of the country in Parliament, that he
may there enforce that plan of reform which last Session he so
powerfully recontmendee, and which in our opinion is absolutely
necessary for the stability and honour of the Throne and the
safety and well-being of the people.
4, Signed iu the name and in the behalf of this Meeting by
&c. &c. &c.
Mr. BYNG then moved that the said Petition do
lie on the table.
Mr. MELLISH thought it incumbent on him to
second this motion, though he should not think it his
duty to support the Petition any farther.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved, that the Petition be again read, which being
accordingly done,
The Right Honourable Gentleman rose and stated,
that when a Petition on the same subject was some
days ago presented from the Electors of Westminster,
many Gentlemen had expressed an'opinion, that from
the disrespectful way in which the Petition was word-
ed, it ought not to be received. He had then urged
on the House the propriety of following a different
course, and of allowing the Petition, though by no
means unexceptionable in its language, to he on the
table. In the conduct he had then pursued, he con-
ceived that he bad given a proof of his forbearance,
which ought to convince the House that he would,
not object to the present motion, were he net per-
suaded that the language of the Petition now underl
consideration, was infinitely more exceptionable than
that then objected to, indeed, that it was such as,
could hardly leave a doubt in the mind of any one,'
that it was the wish of those who used it to insult the
House. He was not one of those who would ask of
the House, when a Petition was presented to them,
desiring Parliamentary Reform, or any other object
which a particular class of men might think it essen-
tial for them to obtain, or when they were called on
to review any proceedings which they had adopted,
to look at the language in which it was conceived,
with a captious view. On the contrary, if it were
possible to conceive that the House was not meant
to be insulted, he would be the last to call upon them
to reject any such Petition. But he would only ask of
Gentlemen to take a dry view of the words of thi.
Petition, and then to say, if it have been dictated by
any other spirit than this, that marking the great for-
bearance of the House on the former occasion, the
present Petitioners were now anxious to try how far
they might go, and that the Petition was not intend.
ed for any other purpose than to insult. It told them
that they had assumed and exercised a power which
was contrary to the Constitution, and against which
they protested. This left no possible ambiguity as to
their meaning, or as if it was only to the mode of exe-
cuting the warrant that they objected. This was not
the language of submission, but telling the House,
on the authority of the Petitioners themselves, that
they (the House) had acted contrary to the Consti-
tution. Was this like the language of persons com-,
ing to that House to petition ? No, it was the lan-
guage of persons who thought themselves entitled to
dictate to the House, and on their own authority to,
declare, that the House had been guilty of an as•l
sumption of power which did not belong to tf*m. In
the Petition presented from the inhabitants of West-
minster, to which many Gentlemen objected, there
was nothing like this. It could be meant for nothing
but to insult the House. It was therefore the duty
of the House to stop short, before it permitted in silt
to be added to insult. There must be a line dr.twn
for such Petitions, so as that every idea of decency
was not suffered to be outraged—and he submitted
there could not be a question that the present petition
had passed this line.
Mr. Alderman COMBE, though he did not de-
fend the language of the Petition, wished it to be re-
ceived, because it was impossible to see, if the Peti-
tion were rejected, where the matter might end. The
Meeting from whom the Petition was presented, had
been nearly unanimous, and the rejection of the
present Petition was not likely to produce language
more moderate.
Mr. CALCRAFT, in voting that the Petition
should be received, begged to be understood a.
grounding his opinion not on the circumstance of the
Meeting -having been unanimous, or that there was
little probability, were the Petition rejected, of a Pe.