ON TITE PREVENTION OF CRUELTIES* BILL. 
657 
In the House of Lords. 
Lord Campbell objected to the minute regulations contained in 
the bill against dog-carts, which would almost annihilate the use of 
those animals in carriages. The bill declared that no dog-carts 
should be used unless they were registered, and, if it appeared that 
any excessive load were placed on a dog-cart, the owners were to 
be liable to a severe penalty. No person whatever was to be 
allowed to ride in carts drawn by dogs, and he thought it hard that 
a poor wretch deprived of his limbs could not be drawn about by 
a docile animal that he had trained for the purpose. He (Lord 
Campbell) had seen his own children ride in a dog-cart with great 
delight. (A laugK). All these regulations were wholly unnecessary 
to prevent cruelty to dogs, because the bill contained a general 
clause, that if cruelty were exercised to any animal the owner 
should be amenable to the law. 
The Duke of Beaufort was quite willing that the bill should be 
amended to meet the views of the noble and learned lord. 
The Earl of Minto felt a general objection to this species of 
legislation, which interfered with the cruelties of the poor, and left 
the cruelties of the rich untouched. The bill was full of restrictions 
and penalties, and the house had not heard a word of observation 
to shew that such a measure was called for. Did the noble Duke 
never see a very heavy man ride a very small horse 7 (A laugh). 
If the noble duke had never, when out with his own hounds, seen a 
man urge his horse beyond his strength, he had been more fortunate 
than himself (the Earl of Minto), for he had seen such a thing a 
hundred times. On what principle should cruelties of this kind 
be left unpunished by the bill, and the cruelties committed by the 
lower classes be made the subject of legislation 7 
The Duke of Beaufort. —The bill contained a general clause 
which would meet cases of cruelty to animals by whomsoever 
committed. 
The Lord Chancellor here put the question, and declared the 
second reading of the bill carried. 
The Earl of Redesdale was understood to say that he did not 
approve of this kind of legislation, directed against the amusements 
or sports of the lower classes. The legislature had put down cock- 
fighting ; but there was nothing cruel in cock-fighting where the 
birds fought with their own weapons, because they were fairly 
weighed against each other. (A laugh.) 
The Bishop of Oxford would support the bill, because it would 
meet a real evil. He should be glad to see a bill brought in to put 
down the driving of dogs in dog-carts altogether, because the soft 
foot of the dog was not fitted to drag heavy loads over hard roads. 
VOL. XXII. 4 s 
