ON THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTIES’ BILL. 659 
instead of the servants in cases where horses or other animals 
were over-driven, and to increase the fines from 40s. to £5. 
Mr. Hume said no one was more anxious than himself to pre¬ 
vent unnecessary cruelty to animals or men; but he thought mul¬ 
tiplicity of legislation might defeat the object in view. He thought 
it should be clearly proved that the existing law was inadequate 
to punish those who offended against it. 
Sir G. Grey observed that the bill was an amendment on the 
old one only, and could not be regarded as an innovation. 
Mr. Henry inquired if there was any clause to prevent steeple 
chasing? [ hear /] 
Mr. Mackinnon replied, not specifically; but those who over¬ 
drove animals could be punished. 
Mr. Browne hoped the bill would be extended to Scotland and 
Ireland. 
Mr. Home Drummond, although he approved of the principle 
of the bill, would oppose its extension to Scotland. 
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be com¬ 
mitted on that day week. 
From this report it is evident that three important questions 
arose in the course of the discussion on the subject: one was— 
raised by Earl Grey—whether cruelty was “a proper subject for 
legislationwhether it had better not “ be left to the improve¬ 
ments that were being effected by other means in the temper and 
character of the people ?” The other questions were, whether the 
bill went far enough or too far; whether other “ sports,” such as 
“ steeple chasing” were not cruelties; and whether the dog-cart 
really amounted to a cruelty ? All which question, and doubt, and 
contrariety of opinion, tends to lay bare the insubstantiality of the 
basis upon which the bill is founded; and is of itself enough to 
make us hesitate before we subscribe to such loose kind of legisla¬ 
tion. There is manifestly something rotten either in the principle 
or the framing of the bill. We may not just now be prepared to 
say what this is; but we are prepared to say, and feel ourselves 
warranted in the assertion, that it would have been better to have 
deferred the consideration of the bill “ to that day six months,” 
rather than to have passed it under such dubious and conflicting 
opinions. 
