couraged by the ministers of that day. But, though that was not the case with respect to the late Joint-stock companies, still it was, he thought, not less the duty of that House to inquire as to who were their authors. The petitioner, in this case; had mentioned the names of all the parties concerned in this company; but as it would be invidious, at present, to mention those names, he would not repeat them. Ordered to lie on the table. negative. He could assure the learned gentleman that he would not recommend himself to that body whom he wished to represent, by opposing the present motion; for there was no Christian minister who would countenance those brutal exhibitions. Both the clergy of the Protestant church, and the dissenting ministers, were unanimous in their wish to have them put down. There was also a petition in progress, of gentlemen who were going about knocking at the doors of all the inhabitants in Westminster, and ninetynine persons out of every hundred were desirous of signing it. There were also fifty-two petitions from Liverpool, Man BEAR-BAITING AND DOG-FIGHTING BILL.] Mr. Martin of Galway, rose, pursuant to notice, to introduce a bill for the more effectual prevention of bear-bait-chester, Bristol, and Hull; in short, from ing, dog-fighting, and other cruel sports. It was, he observed, so very unusual to oppose a bill on the motion for its introduction, that he felt it incumbent on him not to take up much of the time of the House. He would therefore reserve himself to answer any arguments by which his application might be opposed. The bill for which he should move had this recommendation to the representatives of the people, that it was generally approved of by their constituents throughout the country. He held in his hand a list of fifty-two petitions, presented from some of the most populous cities and towns of the kingdom, praying that an end might be put to these cruel sports. These disgraceful scenes were carried on in places called pits, and in no places were they more cruel and disgusting than in that called the Patrician-pit in the neighbourhood of that House. It had become the duty of parliament to put an end to these enormities. He would conclude by moving for leave to bring in his bill. The Attorney-General said, that the merits of this case had been so frequently discussed, that he felt it would not be necessary to make any further comments upon it. He would therefore confine himself to stating, that he would oppose the bill. [Cries of "Question, question."] Mr. Martin said, he could hardly persuade himself that a case which had come to the House recommended by the inhabitants of fifty-two respectable places would have been met by cries of "question, question." The hon. members who raised those cries could not, surely, be aware of so many petitions being before them on the subject, otherwise they would not have thought it decent to limit the expression of their opinions to that brief all the great ports and large manufacturing towns in the kingdom, praying for the adoption of this measure. He would supplicate the Attorney-general, if it were only out of respect for the learned body whom he wished to have for his constituents, to assign the reasons for his opposition to this motion. He had received some affidavits from Oxfordshire, which gave a heart-rending account of a most horrible act of atrocity recently committed at a bull-bait near Oxford. After the bull had been torn and mangled by the dogs, a wretch who was a disgrace to the name of man, thrust some sharp instru ment into the mouth of the suffering animal, and cut out its tongue by the roots, and having placed it on a plate, carried it round amongst the assembled multitude soliciting a collection. He could mention a hundred instances of similar acts of cruelty, of which he had been informed on most undoubted authority. A fellow matched his dog to fight with one of a much heavier weight, and after it had won he again matched it against another dog much larger than itself. In this second engagement it was vanquished, upon which its brutal owner chopped off its fore legs with a bill-knife, and having dug a hole in the ground deposited it therein. If the Attorneygeneral thought it for the good of the country that atrocities of this kind should daily take place, he hoped he would state so to the House. He would give another reason in support of his motion. . There was not a magistrate in London, Westminster, or the adjacent counties, who was not desirous that these disgraceful practices should be put down. It was a matter of great concern to them that they had not been able to suppress the brutal contests and exhibitions which were continually taking place at the Patrician-pit in Westminster. In short, he would defy any hon. gentleman to deny that the whole body of the English nation were not against these sports. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not meet the motion with a mere negative. Mr. William Smith said, he should think himself unworthy of a seat in that House if he was deterred by the apprehension of ridicule, from giving his opinion upon a question in which the morals and happiness of the country were much involved. He thought the country much indebted to the hon. member, for exposing himself in bringing forward this measure, to that species of treatment which was very unworthy on the part of those by whom it was practised. Hon. gentlemen must oppose the bill upon one of three grounds. Perhaps they did not believe the stories which the hon. gentleman told. For his own part, he did believe them, because they were published in the newspapers from time to time, and nobody contradicted them. Perhaps they thought the present laws sufficient to put down these sports. If they were, why were they not enforced? If they thought it was of any advantage to the country that these sports should take place, let them say so, and he should then know better how to answer their arguments. He thought there was a great misunderstanding about these matters. Gentlemen apprehended that they rose above vulgar prejudices and were great philosophers, because they considered the lower class of people entitled to their own amusements. Such an opinion, so far from being philosophic or philanthropic, was founded on an unworthy motive. He thought it arose, though gentlemen were not aware of it, rather from a contempt for the lower class of people. It was as much as to say, "poor creatures, let them alone; they have few amusements, let them enjoy them." It was similar to the language which, for a long period of time, was common in the colonies" As long as they work that is all we want, let them seek their own amusements; what signifies it troubling them about morals; we don't care about these, let them take their own way." He thought these sentiments did no honour to the parties who entertained them. Let those who wished the people to be nothing more than hewers of wood, and drawers of water, entertain such sentiments; but, if they wished to make them rational beings, let them not educate them with one hand, and with the other turn them loose to sports like these. Colonel Wood said, he certainly thought, last session, that the House had gone far enough in legislating upon this subject; but, in the course of the last summer, a most brutal, cowardly, and atrocious scene was permitted to take place at Warwick. He alluded to the lion fight. Every gentleman who had read an account of that disgraceful scene must be of opinion that the laws were deficient; for' he was quite sure that, if the magistrates had felt they had power to put a stop to it, they would have interfered. That scene was a disgrace to human nature; and some law ought to have sufficient force to prevent a similar occurrence. The noble animal which bad been so tormented was more worthy of protection than its brutal owner. Sir Robert Wilson wished to know whether such horrible crimes could not be punished by the existing law, without an expensive process, which rendered the punishment extremely difficult. Mr. R. Colborne said, he was one of those who did not like this system of legislating. If these sports were to be put down, there were sports of the higher classes which should be put down also. It was rather curious that, when the hon. member for Galway got leave to bring in a bill of this nature, he always contrived to have it passed through its stages at one or two in the morning. He would allow that one bill which the hon. member had brought in was of a beneficial nature. He gave him full credit for that bill, inasmuch as it was of his own production, and he stayed in town to put it in execution; but that bill would become a dead letter if it was not for the active interference of the hon. member; and so would all bills framed in this spirit of legislation. It was often seen that where there were public laws to avenge, there was not much private interference to protect, and the animals were worse off than before. He wished the hon. member would withdraw his bill, in order to revise it, and include in its operation some of the sports of the higher orders. Sir John Brydges said, he was not disposed to treat a subject of this importance with levity. Having witnessed the good effects of a former bill of his hon. friend, he could not but vote for this measure. It was said, that this was a contraction of the pleasures of the poor. Now, he contended that those who enjoyed pleasure from these sports rendered themselves worse than brutes. Allusion had been made to the University of Cambridge. If he knew any thing of the sentiments of that learned body, and had the opportunity of seeing them assembled to morrow in the Senate-house, he should find them unanimous, or nearly so, in support of this measure. Mr. Martin said, that the fact of tearing out the tongue of the bull was authenticated to him by the clergyman of the parish where the occurrence took place. The hon. member for Oxfordshire could confirm what he said. general application. Where was legislation to stop, if one gentleman wished to protect lions, another to protect dogs, and both would have an act declaring lion and dog fights illegal? There was scarcely an animal that was capable of being ill-treated in favour of which an act of parliament would not at last be sought, Let these hon. gentlemen state some positive principle upon which they would correct such abuses, and which would apply equally to all cases of cruelty. Let them take, for instance, pigeon-shoot, ing. Why was that practice to be per mitted to one man, whilst another was punishable for doing what amounted to the same thing in principle? If abusing a dog for sport was punishable when practised by the lower orders, there was no reason whatever why pigeon-shooting should be allowed to the higher orders. Let then the House, before it went farther, determine upon the principle on which it was disposed to legislate. To say that selecting a fine thriving pigeon, setting it in a trap to be shot at at twenty yards distance, when in all probability it will be either killed or maimed; to do all this in cold blood, and to say that such wanton cruelty was a perfectly innocent pastime, whilst dog-fighting and bull-baiting were held infamous and punishable, because practised by the lower orders of the people-was a course of legislation to which he for one would never consent. Such were the reasons which induced him to disapprove of the present bill. He owned he was swayed very much by another consideration. He feared, though he was very anxious to suppress abuses, that the means of doing so might in itself be a source of new abuse. He doubted very much whether we could purchase the due punishment of such outrages, except at the risk of creating fresh instruments of individual oppression. He feared the result would be, that animals would not be protected, but that human beings, from piques or wantonness, would be prosecuted. He opposed the motion, not because he less abominated the cruelties recounted by the hon. member, but because he considered that appeals to the feelings did not constitute a sound basis for legislation. The measure was partial in its objects, and inexpedient in its principles; and be therefore should oppose it. Mr. Secretary Peel said, he could not approve of those personal appeals which the hon. member for Galway thought proper to make to his hon. and learned friend; and, as to the insinuations that his hon. and learned friend would injure himself in the estimation of those whose suffrages he was about to court, he could only say, that if his hon. and learned friend stood up, as he always had done, in a fair and manly way, to avow his princiciples, and if, when a proposition was submitted to the House, which appeared to him to originate in a mistaken notion of humanity, he expressed his disapprobation of such measure, there was little danger that he would lower himself in the estimation of those whose support he should solicit. He felt the more anxious to express his disapprobation of the way in which his hon. and learned friend had been treated, because he entertained the same opinion with him upon this bill. If this measure were now for the first time submitted to the consideration of the House, he should perhaps have thought it expedient to entertain it. But it was by no means a novel question. It had been discussed six or seven times in former sessions, and the House was now as competent as it would be at any future time to come to a sound conclusion upon it. God forbid that he should treat with levity the instances of atrocious cruelty which had been detailed by the hon. member. Nothing could be more disgraceful than levity upon such an occasjon. He abominated those deeds of disgusting cruelty as much as any man could do. But the question was, whether or not, upon individual cases of abuse, the House was prepared to make an enactment of The House divided; for the motion 37; against it 76; majority against the motion 39. CATTLE ILI TREATMENT BILL] Mr. Martin, of Galway, next rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the 3rd George 4th, c. 71, entitled "An Act to prevent the cruel and improper Treatment of Cattle." The hon. gentleman said, that he wished to extend the protection which was granted by former measures to cattle, to all domesticated animals. Why was not a dog entitled to the same protection as a horse? He was prepared to show, by affidavits, that there were numerous instances of dogs being flayed alive. It had been asked, were they to legislate upon individual instances of monstrous cruelty? He would reply by stating a case which had been mentioned to him by Mr. Halls, the magistrate of Bow-street. That gentleman had informed him, that he had seen a parcel of wretches take a dog, flay him alive, taking the skin completely off, put a collar about his neck, and after dragging him a mile, throw him into a river. Mr. Halls added, that, so much were his feelings wrought upon by this exhibition, that he did what was certainly a violation of the law, but was highly to the credit of his humanity-he took the boy who was holding the collar, and flung him into the river after the dog. He (Mr. M.) stated nothing now but what he gave chapter and verse for. As to the fact which he had stated relative to the cutting out of the tongue of a bull, and its being severed from the surrounding integuments by a brutal fellow who had thrust his hand into the animal's mouth for the purpose, and lastly, as to the tongue being handed about the crowd in a plate for money, the person who held it, saying, "please to put something on the tongue," he would appeal for the truth of the statement to the hon. member for Oxfordshire, before whom the offenders, he understood, were brought. Could any one, after hearing such a statement, refuse their protection to the unfortunate animal, who was so often subjected to such treatment? He had taken the opinion of his majesty's Attorney-General on the subject, and, he was happy to say, that the opinion of that learned person, beyond all doubt a good one, was decidedly unfavourable to the legality of such proceedings. The Attorney-General conceived that it was as unlawful to hurt a bull in that manner, as it would be to maim or torture any other animal [The Attorney-General here indulged in a smile]. The learned gentleman might laugh, and no doubt he considered him and his case as a fit subject for ridicule, but he could tell him it was not a matter of ridicule elsewhere. It had been observed, both of the bills, which he bad carried, and of those which he meant to pass, that he legislated on particular cases. While, however, he admitted he had selected cases of animals tortured through the means of the skin, as those best fitted to convey to the House the nature of the torments which poor dumb creatures were forced to endure, because it was well known that no part of the frame was so sensitive as the skin; still he could produce many other instances of the most horrible tortures inflicted upon every species of domesticated animals, with every refinement upon cruelty. He contended, however, that the proof of one such act was as good as a thousand: what had happened to one dog might, and probably had, happened to hundreds; the business of the legislature was to prevent, not to punish; and, in defiance of the dicta of the late Mr. Windham and all his patrician supporters of the present day, he would maintain that the dog and the bull should be equally protected from the savage ferocity of an ignorant mob; and that the legislature, listening to the unanimous sense of all the character and respectability of the country, should interpose its authority, and guard against the recurrence of such scenes as had been described. His purpose was to alter and amend the former act, as far as regarded domesticated animals; and he would, in addition to the clauses contained in the bill of last year, which had been lost, propose another clause, granting magistrates the power to compensate individuals in a humble station, for the loss they might incur by giving information of the perpetration of the crimes which it was his ob ject to punish or prevent. He hoped the Attorney-general would not consider a fine of three or four pounds, or the imprisonment of a week, a sufficient punishment for such offences as he had described; and that if he held the maiming other people's property a felony, he would not object to making the wanton torture of animals, even if they were a man's own property, a high misdemeanour, somewhat different from the punishment allotted to the over-driving of a horse; and, if he objected to the power being granted to a magistrate of summary conviction, he would at all events allow the case to be fairly tried at the quarter sessions. It Mr. Martin.-Yes. would remedy a defect in sir James Mac-placed it upon a plate, and had then gone intosh's bill, which made it necessary to about collecting money upon it. Was that a correct statement of what the hon. memprove malice against the owner before a conviction could be obtained against any ber had said? person who maimed and wounded cattle. As he saw the hon. member for Oxfordshire in his place, he should like to know the reasons which had prevented him from punishing the person who had baited the bull, and maltreated it in the manner he had described. If the hon. member had any doubts as to whether the bull was privileged by his bill, he could tell him that the Attorney-general had given it as his opinion, that it was, and had further added, that bull-baiting was illegal. The hon. member, after some further remarks, concluded by asking leave to bring in the bill. Mr. Butterworth, in seconding the motion, said he considered the suppression of such nuisances as that which this bill was meant to suppress, of minor consideration, compared with those scenes of outrage and brutality which attended the practice of prize-fighting. When men were hardened and brutalized, by habitually witnessing the violence and bloodshed which accompanied prize-fighting, it was impossible they could think of treating inferior animals with tenderness. He regretted that such exhibitions, instead of being denou ncedby the authorities, were in too many instances allowed to proceed, if not directly encouraged. He had reason to believe, that two years ago a prize-fight took place at Warwick, when the magistrates of that county not only declined to interfere to prevent such a scene, but caused constables to attend it for the purpose of preserving order. If this statement were true, nothing could be more disgraceful to those authorities. Such abominable outrages were calculated to brutalize the minds of the mass, and to render them insensible to the quantity of pain which they inflicted on inferior creaHe trusted the hon. gentleman would turn his attention to the prizering, as by suppressing that source of demoralization and depravity, he would be doing more good than he could possibly expect to effect by all his acts against the ill-treatment of cattle. tures. Mr. Ashurst begged leave to say, that a complaint had been made to him of conduct similar to that which the hon. member stated; but when the parties came before him to substantiate that complaint upon oath, it assumed a very different aspect. It appeared that, during the time the bull was getting baited, a ferocious dog, which had been tied up in a House adjoining to the spot where the baiting took place, escaped from his kennel, attacked the bull, and actually bit off a small portion of its tongue. On the witness who, saw this circumstance, being asked whether the tongue had been cut out, he said, that if it was, he did not see it. Being further asked, whether he had seen the tongue put upon a plate, and carried round the meeting, he said that he saw no such thing done, and that he did not believe that it had been done. He then asked the witness, whether he could mention any person who had set a dog upon the bull after its mouth had become covered over with a bloody foam. To that question he got no answer upon which he could act officially as a magistrate. The hon member had asked him, whether he conceived bull-baiting to be illegal. For his own part, he must say, that be knew of no law by which bull-baiting had been prohibited; and, as long as he knew that lands were held at Windsor, at Oakingham, and at Stamford, on condition of keeping a bull for baiting, he could not believe that it had been prohibited. Besides, he knew of no case in which it had yet been decided that bull-baiting was illegal. No person who knew him could charge him with being guilty of giving encouragement to the practice; but he did not believe it to be prohibited by any law at present in existence. Mr. Martin said, he had an opinion of the Attorney-general, which he would get published, declaring the illegality of bullbaiting. The Attorney General said, he did not rise to object to the motion of the hon. member. What precise object he sought to attain by the present bill, he could not comprehend from the hon. member's speech; but, if he thought that his former bill wanted amendment, it was only fair that he should have an opportunity of |