their way into a court of justice. However, he trusted the House would not think the time wasted which they had employed in considering those claims, when they were told that his Royal Highness's petition of right during the time of the late lord chancellor had lain in the office six years and a half, without receiving an answer. If the learned judge, who now held the seals, should be against the claims of his Royal Highness, they must rest for ever. But, he trusted that the able and honourable men, whose legal assistance the prince of Wales had, would find their opinion confirmed by that of the chancellor. In that case, he should deem it his duty to lay the result before the House. He took that opportunity of stating, that since the year 1795, 525,000%. had been paid of his Royal Highness's debts, not from the public purse, but from a portion of his income set apart for that purpose. He hoped that the sum it would be found his Royal Highness was entitled to would enable him to pay what still remained; for it would give him the liveliest satisfaction to be able to pay his own debts with his own means.

Debate in the Commons on the Bullbaiting Bill.] May 24. Mr. Dent having moved, that the bill to prevent Bull-baiting and Bull-running, be read a second time,

Sir Richard Hill said:-Sir, I rise in behalf of a race of poor friendless beings who certainly cannot speak for themselves. I shall, however, be brief, being well assured, that if the voice of common sense, common humanity, and uncommon distress and misery cannot be heard, all I can say will be of no avail. Instead, therefore, of multiplying words, I shall bring forward some facts, which I hope will prove the means of setting forth the barbarous custom of bull-baiting in its true light. Sir Richard then read some passages which he had selected, mentioning the shocking cruelties which had been inflicted on a poor animal, in order to make him furious enough to afford diversion to his brutal tormentors; but the tortured creature soon becoming outrageous, he was entangled with ropes, his hoofs cut off, and baited again, whilst he feebly sustained and defended himself on his stumps. He then brought a striking citation from sir Matthew Hale, where, In an address to the Deity, that great man expresses his sentiments concerning cruelty +

He next

towards the brute creation. said, that after the testimony of so illustrious a person as sir M. Hale, he could adduce no higher human authority, and should therefore finish his quotations with a short word from a source the purity of which, he trusted, would never be disputed in that great assembly of professing Christians, whatever it might be in a French convention. He who was at once the wisest of men, and the greatest of kings, had declared that "the merciful man regarded the life of his beast, but that the tender mercies of the wicked were cruel." There was wanted no comment to prove that, in this saying, Solomon contrasted the difference between the good man and the wicked man, in one particular instance, which related to the conduct of each towards dumb creatures. He said, he had in his pocket many letters from the most respectable characters in the kingdom, setting forth the dreadful cruelties, as well as shocking accidents, which had accrued from the abominable practice. He also mentioned a letter which he had received from a worthy clerical friend and brother magistrate, in the district wherein he himself acted, in which the respectable name of the chairman of the quarter-sessions was added, as joining in the general wish of the county of Salop, for the abolition of a custom which had been pregnant with such horrid barbarities. Sir Richard added, that he had several more petitions, besides those already on the table, but he was ashamed to take up the time of the House by reciting them. In Ireland an act had passed for the abolition of bull-baiting; and as the Irish gentlemen had been so favourable to their own bulls, he was sure they would not be less indulgent to ours. Sir Richard then requested that the petition from Norwich (the place which Mr. Windham represents) might be read; but there being no such petition from thence against the bill, sir Richard said he might reasonably have supposed that all the cathedral church, together with the mayor and corporation, had sent up such a petition. It had been objected, that this bill was only the beginning of a system; but what system?— a system of humanity! a system of peace! And was this system so grating to the ears of some gentlemen, that they could not even bear to hear of a definitive treaty between a dog and a bull? The amiable sex, in general, were advocates for the bill. There might, indeed, be some ex

ceptions; but where should we find them? Perhaps, staggering out of a gin-shop in St. Giles's; perhaps sitting over an oystertub, or riding in a cinder-cart, but it could not strictly be said of any one of these ladies, "Grace is in all her steps, Heaven in her eye; in all her gestures dignity and love." Though he had observed, at the beginning of his speech, that he was an advocate for poor beings who could not speak for themselves, there came into his mind a fact, wherein even a dumb animal, through the immediate power of the Almighty, rebuked the cruelty of his owner. He then mentioned the case of Balaam's ass; and added, that if an angel interposed on the occasion, surely it was not a circumstance improper to be adduced in a Christian assembly.

"

Mr. Windham said, that the evil complained of by the supporters of this bill was not such as justified the interference of the legislature. It was not an evil that had grown with our growth, and strengthened with our strength: but, on the contrary, it had declined as they had increased. An allusion had been made to a petition from Norwich on the subject; and an insinuation had been thrown out, that it was a practice generally prevalent in that neighbourhood. The fact, however, was, that within the last twenty years only two instances were remembered of a bull bait in Norwich or its vicinity. Decreasing as the practice was all over the country, he could not but think that the discussion of such paltry local complaints was wholly unworthy of the legislature of a great nation. It was part of a system of introducing subjects of a similar kind into parliament, which he could not but reprobate in the strongest terms. The subject was, in all points of view degrading; but it appeared more especially unworthy of being entertained by the imperial parliament, at a time when so many other subjects of great national importance were calling for the attention of the House. Such a sort of public interference with matters unworthy of the consideration of the legislature could be productive of no consequences but such as were mischievous. No law could be desirable which would be attended with no national advantage, and this advantage ought to be well weighed before a legislative enactment was required. A law in all cases necessarily involved a certain degree of restraint; and it was also to be taken into the account, that it could not be carried

into effect without vesting in, those who were to enforce its provisions a considerable degree of discretion. If such a law were to be passed, it could not act by a silent operation. On the contrary, it would be enforced by those who principally exerted themselves for the observance of the game laws, and who, in enforcing its provisions, could not possibly escape a large share of public odium. Such was the subject now before the House, which contained nothing of public or general interest. To procure the discussion of such subjects, it was necessary to resort to canvass and intrigue. Members, whose attendance was induced by local consider. ations in most cases of this description, were present; the discussion if any took place, was managed by the friends of the measure; and the decision of the House was perhaps ultimately a matter of mere chance. The present bill was precisely one of a similar description, and but from the circumstance of the subject having excited some attention in a former session it might have been considered by chance, and agreed to without discussion. On this general principle, then, he was inclined to oppose the discussion of the subject, as totally unworthy of the dignity of the House. But he had, in the next place, to object to the manner in which the subject of bull-baiting had been considered, not from a general view of the subject, but from a few insulated examples. The friends of the bill took a view of the practice complained of, merely as exhibited on a minute scale, and from them consequences were drawn. They' put the bull and the dog as exhibited in a few instances, into the eye of their microscope, and through this confined medium desired the House to contemplate the general practice. The cruelties of the practice were the only circumstances held up to observation, and every thing else was kept out of view. But if this mode of viewing the subject were to be adopted, he saw no reason why all other sports should not be contemplated in a similar manner. If the cruelty of bull-baiting was thus to be held up to the attention of the House in such glaring colours, why was not hunting, shooting, fishing, and all other amusements of a similar description, to be judged of by similar principles? If the effects of the one were to be viewed through the medium of a microscope, why were not the consequences of the other to be scrutinized with equal severity? By.

viewing objects in this way, not only would false conclusions be drawn, but the objects themselves would appear inverted, and in a way never intended by nature. Things would not only not appear the same, but their whole aspect would be reversed. Nothing could be more pleasing to the eye than the sight of female beauty; but even if the fairest complexion were contemplated through a microscope, deformities would appear, and hairs unobservable to the naked eye would present themselves as the bristles on the back of a boar. Such attacks as the present on the amusements of the people struck him in no other light than as the first step to a reform of the manners of the lower orders. Those who, when young men, had formed projects for the reformation of parliament, finding themselves disappointed in those projects now formed the design of reforming the manners of the people. In their desires to accomplish this object there were two great parties united, the Jacobins and the Methodists, though the objects they had in view by this change were essentially different. By the former every rural amusement was condemned with a rigour only to be equalled by the severity of the puritanical decisions. They were described as a part of the lewd sports and Antichristian pastimes which in times of puritanism, had been totally proscribed. Every thing joyous was to be prohibited, to prepare the people for the reception of their fanatical doctrines. By the Jacobins on the other hand, it was an object of important consideration to give to the disposition of the lower orders a character of greater seriousness and gravity, as the means of facilitating the reception of their tenets; and to aid this design, it was necessary to discourage the practice of what were termed idle sports and useless amusements. This was a design which he should ever think it his duty strenuously to oppose. For, though he wished that the people might become more virtuous, more attentive to the duties of religion, better fathers, better husbands, better children, he could never agree that for this purpose their social habits should be changed; that they should prove more austere, more unsociable, and more selfconceited than they now were. Whenever he saw any steps taken to produce this effect, he could not consider them in any other light than as so many steps of a departure from the old English character. The habits long established among the [VOL. XXXVI.]

people were the best fitted to resist the schemes of innovation; and it was among the labouring and illiterate part of the people that Jacobinical doctrines had made the smallest progress. In this respect indeed, it was otherwise with Methodist doctrines. They throve best on a stubborn soil; but they had the effect of preparing it for the reception of the doctrines of Jacobinism. In this work, indeed, the two parties mutually over-reached each other. The party of Methodists invited the people to read, and in the first instance they might peruse a few Jacobinical productions, that they might read with greater advantage their fanatical productions at a future period. In the same way, the Jacobins wished to divert the people from every social pursuit; reading they strenuously recommended; and, though a few Methodistical books were, in the first instance, not wholly proscribed, they were allowed only to fit the mind for the reception of their poisonous tenets. effect of their exertions was the same, though thus differently pursued. It was equally directed to the destruction of the old English character, by the abolition of all rural sports. So much convinced was he that this was the object of such a bill as the present, that he almost felt disposed to rest his opposition to it on this footing. Out of the whole number of the disaffected, he questioned if a single bullbaiter could be found, or if a single sportsman had distinguished himself in the Corresponding Society: the hunting for which they reserved themselves was of a noble kind; they disdained the low pursuits of ordinary sportsmen; the game against which their efforts were directed were of no less a quality than kings. When he spoke of this union of the Methodists and Jacobins, he did not mean to deny that, in their political principles, as well as their ultimate objects, they essentially differed. Religion was an ingredient in the character of the Methodists, which was directly hostile to the views of Jaco. binism; for in the composition of modern Jacobinism religion formed no part. But they were not, on serious consideration, so very far removed from each other as might at first sight appear. As a general assertion, it would be admitted, that hot water was farther removed from congelation than what was cold; but when the hot water was exposed to the air, it was more speedily frozen. In a similar manner, though in the abstract Methodism [ 3 H]

and Jacobinism seemed to be the farthest removed from each other, yet facts showed that the tenets of the one prepared the mind for the adoption of the doctrines of the other. In confirmation of this mutual design of these parties, the right hon. member took occasion to quote a passage from the memoirs of a rural poet of considerable celebrity (Bloomfield, author of the Farmer's Boy, &c. by Mr. Capel Lofft) in which it is mentioned that the poet was in the habit of spending his time in reading in his garret, or attending a debating society, which the editor recommends as a much more worthy mode of employing himself, than if he had been occupied in gambling, drinking, or fighting. Mr. W. paid some very handsome compliments to the originality of many of the thoughts of this poet, to his natural simplicity, and unaffected elegance of language. He wished what he now said to be considered as an unexaggerated declaration of his opinion of the merits of the poem. But with this high opinion of the merits of the poet, he had doubts how far it was proper to encourage ideas of literary profit or renown in those who had been bred to a useful trade. In particular instances it might not be prejudicial; but to inculcate such notions as those contained in the passage of the memoirs to which he had referred, could tend only to a mischievous purpose. He regretted the minuteness with which he was obliged to enter into the consideration of the subject, but threw the blame on those by whom such a subject was introduced. An examination of the bill was not less necessary than if it had referred to a subject of the highest national importance. To examine the character of a daub of Teniers was often a work of more difficulty than to describe the beauties of the Madona of Raphael. -He next proceeded to read an extract from a sermon, which he declared he should in all probability never have read, but from the circumstances of its having been sent to him by the author, in which the cruelty of bull-baiting was described in very strong terms; and the man who would encourage the practice was represented as a person who would not hesitate to sheath a blade in the bowels of his fellow creatures. That the practice of sports even when they were of a cruel kind, tended to render mankind cruel, he denied, and he founded his assertion on the history of all ages and countries. The most elegant scholars, and the finest poets

in antient or modern times, from Xenophon to Virgil and Milton, were loud in the praises of many of those sports which, with equal justice, might be called cruel, as that which had been so loudly condemned. What was the inference he drew from all this, but that cruelty was not at all the object of those sports though in certain instances it might be the result? If he were asked what was the object of bull-baiting? he should be better able to give an intelligible answer, than if he were asked a similar question with regard to hunting, or other amusements of a similar description. That a certain degree of gratification might be received from the spectacle of the combats of animals, the history of all ages sufficiently proved. Even the philosophy of the present age took part in a practice which had prevailed in this country for centuries. In the time of queen Elizabeth, that which was now despised and reprobated as the amusement only of the lowest of the people, was an amusement courted by all ranks. Since that period, bull-baiting had declined, and hunting had usurped its room. The one had become the favourite amusement of the great and the other had sunk in dignity till it was, in a great measure, annihilated. And yet it was at such a moment as this that the House were called upon to put it down by a legislative enactment. Was this, he asked, a time to abridge the amusements of the common people, when we were meditating the extension of the game laws to Ireland?-But the riots and confusion which the practice of bullbaiting occasioned were urged as another reason for the necessity of the interference of the legislature. This was a favourite argument on a former occasion when the subject was before the House, with an hon. friend of his (Mr. Wilberforce) the member for Yorkshire. In this instance, the conduct of his right hon. friend put him in mind of the story of the butcher who ran about seeking for his knife while it was in his teeth; for he was searching every quarter in quest of objects of reform, while those in his own neighbourhood were totally overlooked. When he condemned the excesses to which bull-baiting gave rise, had he forgotten all the confusion and riot which horse-racing produced? He himself did not object to the practice of horse-racing, since there were so many individuals to whom it was a source of pleasure. But he might be allowed to remind the House of the observation of