658 
ON THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTIES’ BILL. 
Earl Grey believed that cruelty was one of those vices which 
were not proper subjects of legislation, but had better be left to 
the improvements that were being effected by other means in the 
temper and character of the people. The kind of legislation con¬ 
templated by this bill did more harm than good, because the pro¬ 
visions were to be carried into effect by the odious machinery of 
public informers. Allusion had been made to cock-fighting; but 
look to the greater cruelties committed in steeple-chasing. (Cheers). 
If the house divided he would vote against this bill. 
The Earl of Malmesbury begged to inform the right rev. pre¬ 
late, that no dogs were so healthy as those that were trotted up 
and down a hard road. 
The Bishop of Oxford. —But not if they had to drag a heavy 
weight. It was well known that, while all other animals at times 
refused to draw a load the dog never did, however unequal it 
might be to his strength. Hydrophobia was not unfrequently 
caused by this means. 
The Earl of Malmesbury was the more inclined to object to 
this interference because there were hundreds of persons who 
gained a livelihood by carrying fish, shoes, and other articles 
about the country by means of dogs, and it would be unwise to 
restrain them from so doing, unless the means whereby they gained 
their living were shocking to the public and demoralizing to 
themselves. (Hear). 
The Duke of Argyll supported the bill, and reminded his noble 
friend (Earl Grey) that, to be consistent, he ought to move the 
repeal of many laws for the prevention of cruelty which were now 
on the statute-book. No line could be drawn defining exactly what 
was cruelty ; but he agreed with his noble friend in denouncing the 
cruelty of steeple-chasing [hear, hear!']. He would support this 
bill, because it would reach such cases, one clause in the bill pro¬ 
viding that if any person should drive or urge a beast manifestly 
above its strength he shoidd be liable to a penalty. In Scotland 
dogs were never harnessed to carriages, and he could not, there¬ 
fore, speak to the cruelty of this mode of conveyance ; ^but he 
agreed with the right reverend prelate, that the soft foot of the dog 
was not adapted for travelling along hard roads, and he should be 
glad to see the practice put down altogether. 
In the House of Commons. 
The Marquis of Worcester moved the second reading of the 
above bill. It was not, as was generally believed, an entirely 
new bill, but merely an improvement on the act of 1835; the main 
features being that it contained provisions to punish the owners 
