The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-02-12 00:00:00

ferior officers might be very likely to follow. He should
regret the day when the yeomen of England were exelnded
from serving on Juries. Although not so quick of under-
standing, perhaps, or endued with so great a spring of
mind as men living in townsethe country yeoman, in many
particulars, was a valuable character, being possessed of
more fearlessness, less liable to be awed, and blessed with
that vis inertiae. or it may he called firmness, which was
so necessary sometimes to the dischar4e of this duty. He
hoped that measures would be taken to guard against any
abuse in the selection of Jurors by inferior officers, and
that at all times there should he a due proportion of all
classes summoned to serve. He had always approved of
the general meetings of counties which Assizes induced, as
these meetings contributed to keep alive the spirit of free-
dom, and bring men more clasely to a tangible sense of
their rights. People in towns, on the other hand, had al-
ready opportunities enough of being conversant with
Courts of Justice; but he had no objection that they should
have their share, provided the two classes were always
brought together in a fair proportion.
Mr. Secretary PEEL did not rise to oppose the motion,
concurring as he did entirely with the floe. Mover in his
views on this subject. He approved of the principle of ex-
tending more widely the right of serving in Juries, at the
same time that he thought with an Hot:oorahle Member
behind him, that any alteration in the constitution of Ju-
ries, should be undertaken with great caution. But con-
Curing as be did in his reasoning, he was obliged to svy
that the conclusion to which that reas ming led, appeared
to him different from that which the Honourable Menthe
conceived. Surely, if it was good to make more persons
acquainted with the duties of a .feror, for that reason ik!
principle of this bill. which was for extension, ought to tie
approved of. The object was to make personal property 4.
qualification for serving on Juries in counties; hot as this
bad been done hitherto in boroughs and towns, the prin-
ciple was in fact admitted, and there could be no objection
to this Bill. The only defect in the measure seemc.l to be
in the want of a more unerring test for aseertaieing the
amount of each man's property. The practice was, for the
inferior officers of the counties to make returns

persons as they supposed qualified to serve; but there
should be some certain guide afforded these men, be which
they conid ascertain the property of Jurors. By this Bill,
any one possessed of 1601. in personal property would have
. • right to serve.
. &Ir. WESTERN.—Four hundred.
. Mr. PF.EL.—The principle was the same. The difficulty
was as tot he mode of ascertaining whether a man was worth
. this sum, without having recourse to a very inqpisitarial
proceeding. He would suggest for the test, the assessment
. fur parochial or poor rates—(Hear, hear.)—which could
be referred to at once, and which would prevent disputes,
either by objections made by the Jurors themselves, or
upon challenges at trials. With regard to the incon-
venience s high was apprehended from the clashiiig. of die
two Bills, be apprehended, that might be avoided by the
Honourable Member sending his Bill to a Committee,
who if they approved of the principle, might incorporate
it with his Bill. Ile supposed the. Hon. Member would
have no objection, as he understood that lie did not mean
his Bill to be an Att in itself; but as a suggestion to be
incorporated in the Consolidating Act.
Mr. WESTERN said be approved of the suggestion
%Odd' bad been made by the Right Honourable Secreta-
ry, awl would fix the details of the Rill in the proper stage.
—Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. WESTERN then moved for returns of the number

. of persons tre I on the Hanle Circuit, between December
1522, and January 1b:23, stating the offences with wLich
. they tre cliarged.--thdc red.

• CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
Mr. MARTIN moved f•:• leave to bring in a Rill to
amend the Act regarding Cruel,y to Cattle. lie said he
saw no reason why other animals should not be privileged
and protected, as well as cattle. The stro.lions trcelties
that bad been perpetrated on dogs were well known.—
/(Sonte !Member here spoke to tke Honourable Gentleman,
wbo said, no, be bal. notion of protecting rats.) An in-
stance had been rela.e.l in the public prints, of a dog
getting into a house, and a man throwing► boding water
over him, that he expired in the greatest torture imagin-
able. Without pretending to have more sensibility than
other people, he thought other animals as worthy of being
protected as cattle. There was another object he should
have in view in the amendment of the Bill, and it uas tl••e
making the mistreatment of any animal a misdemeanour.—
Nobody of constitutional principles would object tft trying
a man before the Quarter Sessions, where he tvould Lave
the benefit of a Jury to consider his case. At are same time
making it a misdemeanour would not take away the sum-
mary jurisdiction the :Magistrate now hail. N.) man, who
bail beard of the atrocity narrated in the public prints, of
the burning of a parcel of horses to death, %maid say that
a summary conviction, and imprisonment for a month or
two, was an adequate puaishment. In the town of Holy-
well, a wretch applied a slow tire to a horse's belly, and
scorched the animal until the whole coateuts of tit, abdo-
men tumbled out. Acts of that atrocity were net sufficient-
ly punished by conviction ht.;;) re a lla4istr pre. The other
object of the motion was, for leave to brintr in a 1:111 to
abolish bear-beating, and a number of utter cruel sports
of the same descril;tion.

Mr. Secretary PEEL said he was as much disposed as any
one could be, to do justice to the motives of the lion. Gentle-
man ; but his amendment involved principles so important,
that he should have entered more into detlil, and not have
taken it for granted he was to introduces Bill of nib descrip-
tion without an argument in its favour. He could not Ramie
to the Hon. Gentlemen bringing in the Bill, without reenrding
his dissent from its principle.—(lienr.) If the Hon. Menilm-
had proposed to proceed on the principle that all pains ialPcted
on animals, except for the use of man should he punished,
that would be somethiug fair ; but it was not fair to select a
particular instance to legislate upon, whilst we ourselves were
chargeable with the same inhuman conduct. It was imposvi,de
to forget that those who passed the Bill, were, for the pur.
poses of amusement. gui:ty themselves of precisely the same
thing.—(Year, hear.) The house had refused to make any
alteration in the Game Laws last Session, on the ground that
by the amusement exclusively possessed by country gentle-
men, they were induced to remain on their estates, and dis-
pense those benefits which were inseparable from their resi-
dence. What pretence could there be, for preventing iu the
lower classes that lova of -spasm ashich astute had implanted
in man. It was on that ground he thought all individual Acts
for the suppression of bear baiting imperfect. Let the lion.
Gentleman abolish cock fighting, hunting, and partridge sh:ot-
lug. and every other amusement which rested on the same
basis. If the Hon. Gentleman could say, that for the purposes
of police a particular offence should be suppressed, viz. bear
baiting, he should be willing to listen to bis proposition ; but
if he introduced this on the principle that pain ought not to be
inflicted on animals, it ought to be much more extensive in its
•:naetments. Who could say hawking was not in itself cruel?
In fishing there was at least as much cruelty. There was a
wanton Interference with the liberty of other animals who
were shut up in a cage and exhibited to public view. If this
principle was admitted, he knew not to what extent it might be
carried. It would go to the abolition of all sports which
rested on the same principle, viz.—where pain was wantonly
Inflicted on animals for the amusement of human beings. If
we limited the principle, and selected a particular instance, it
was only great injustice and oppression, and it was on these
grounds he should resist the present proposition for infixing a
pushy on sports—the sports of the lower classes.
Mr. MARTIN said, if the Hon. Secretary had attended
any of these sports, he would be of opinion they stood on
a different ground from shooting, fishing, or hunting. The
gentlemen who followed those diversions, were not to be
brought under the description of those wretched mis-
creants who attended bull-baiting, bear-baiting, monkey-
fighting, and those kind of sports. He would prohibit
those sports which he found public opinion accompanied
him in 'saying ought to be prohibited ; and he did assure
the Gentlemen who heard him, that whatever their opi-
nions might be, it was the opinion of the better thinking

s