HC Deb 26 February 1824 vol 10 cc485-96
Mr. R. Martin

rose, according to notice, and stated, that the motion which he had to propose was, that a committee be appointed to inquire how far cruel sports, if persevered in, tended to deteriorate and corrupt the morals of the people. This was a proposition which he thought it was only necessary to be stated, to command universal assent from those who heard it. He hoped too, that if it was disputed, it would be met with something else than witticisms. It might be said, that animals were not possessed of those rights which man possessed; but he should contend, that though they could not be said to possess rights in the same degree as men, yet that being placed under the protection of man, they were entitled, so far as was consistent with the use which was given to map over the brute creation to be treated with kindness and humanity. He thought, therefore, that unnecessary cruelty to animals, if it did exist, should be put down, and if they asked the magistrates of London, of its vicinity, and of the united empire, they would tell them that it did exist, and ninety-nine to one of them would vote, that it should be put down, as tending to corrupt the morals of the people. If animals could be contended to have no right to the protection of man, he still should contend, that the sports which were the object of his motion ought to be suppressed, as tending to corrupt morals, and endanger good order; and it was on this ground that he particularly founded his motion. He would tell the House, that the persons who were collected together at the bear-baitings, and badger-baitings were the lowest and most wretched description of people. They were the horse-butchers of the vicinity of the metropolis, the butchers' boys, the coal-porters—those were the description of people who frequented the bear-pits. When hon. gentlemen said, that bear-baiting and badger-baiting were to be compared to fox-hunting and partridge-shooting, he would gravely admonish those gentlemen how they might hurt their own popularity when they said that they could not put down these cruel sports without putting down the field-sports, in which they delighted. It was making them out to be as cruel and as monstrous as those monstrous, wretches the bear-baiters. Those who sported on their own manors, or fished in their own streams, were a very different sort of men. He had known men. as humane as men could be who followed the sports of the field. The gentleman who presided over Westminster school had said, that the Westminster pit was the greatest mischief and disgrace to the neighbourhood of the school, as, he was sorry to say, the gentlemen of the school were too much in the habit of attending it. Bear-baiting and badger-baiting were essentially different from foxhunting and shooting: the badger was brought out, not to be killed at once, but to be baited, day after day, till he was torn to pieces by the dogs. It was impossible to put this on a footing with shooting or fox-hunting. He would just state one case which had occurred at the Westminster pit, it was a fight between an unlucky bear and a bull dog: the lower jaw of the bear was torn off, and he was then not killed and put out of pain, but allowed to languish in torment; the dog had its jugular artery cut, and died. The wretched animals that survived one combat were brought out month after month. He had seen one that had lived two years; its eyes were out, its lip torn off, and the keepers said that it was necessary to shoot it at last, as there was nothing left for the dogs to lay hold of. These sports were the amusement of the lowest rabble.—It might be said, that this cruelty was not the amusement of many. It was true that it was not; and therefore there was the less reason for defending them, because the many were annoyed by the few who practised those barbarities. He allowed, that if the thing were done publicly—if the animals were torn to pieces and tortured in the open streets—the nuisance would be greater; but the annoyance was great to any person of humanity to know, that at certain hours these horrible cruelties were going on. If this were to be called a right, he would say, that a right should not be allowed to exist so inconsistent with the happiness of others. It was asked, were they to interfere with the amusements of the people? He should be glad to see the man who would get up and say, that the bull-baiters were the people of England. The many were annoyed by these cruelties, and their feelings and happiness ought to be considered. If they wanted petitions, petitions would flow in from every part, of the united kingdom, supplicating them to put an end to the cruelty to animals. The other day he had presented a petition from Manchester on the subject, and he thought it was a great honour that he was. selected to present it, signed by 700 persons, and he was informed that the signa- tures were most respectable. Among them were all the resident physicians, and the physicians of the hospitals; men inferior to none in science and knowledge of their profession, and seven clergymen of good reputation for morals and learning. He knew there was another petition coming from Liverpool, and if any hon. member would go and knock at the door of every man in London and Westminster, he would find a vast majority who would pray for the abolition of these cruelties. He should not trouble the House further, except to move,

"That a Select committee be appointed, to inquire, whether the practice of Bear-baiting, and other cruel sports, has a mischievous effect on the morals of the people."

Sir R. Heron

rose to give his utmost opposition to the motion of the hon. member, and he begged the House not to sanction such a petty, trumpery, and he would add, such a blundering kind of legislation. He would explain what he meant by the term "blundering kind of legislation," as that which had been adopted by the hon. member. In the course of the last-session, the hon. member had said, that he would not touch upon bull-baiting, because he thought he was likely to be opposed in it; and yet, the other evening he had gloried in the attempt to put it down. This he would call a blundering mode of legislation; for an hon. member to glory at one time for having attempted that which, a short time before, he had declared he did not intend. Perhaps, the hon. member had intended to give the House one bull instead of another. He would oppose this motion, because he thought it went to trench upon the amusements of the people, and he did not think that they ought to be trenched upon unnecessarily. The legislature had not shown itself very favourable to the sports of the common people. He could not believe that the higher orders were cruel in their sports, or that the lower orders, who imitated those above them were cruel in theirs. The hon. member who brought this forward had either gone too far, or not far enough on this occasion. In his opinion, he went too far; but, on the hon. member's own principle, he would ask him what he thought of cock-fighting? or what he thought of another kind of sport, in which he did not know whether the hon. member indulged; namely, that of torturing an oyster by eating it alive? What did he think of fox-hunting? He was not a badger-baiter; but he really thought that, there was just about as much cruelty in torturing a fox to death, as torturing a badger. But the hon. member, after abolishing those sports, must not rest there. He must carry his protection to animals still further, and move an humble address to the throne, praying that his majesty will enter into a convention with the king of France, for the purpose of abolishing the torture of frogs in that country. He must also, upon the principle of this motion, endeavour to do away with the manufacture of the Strasburg-pie, which, as was well known, consisted of a certain part of a goose, the liver, after that animal had been kept in. torture for a considerable time. Looking at the tendency of the present motion, he: could hot support such a petty and trumpery mode of legislation, and should therefore oppose it.

Mr. W. Peel

said, he gave credit to his hon. friend, for the excellent motives that actuated him, but he could not avoid seeing the gross inconsistency and partiality of the law that was proposed. They who were daily in the habit of pursuing amusements which had some degree of cruelty (though, perhaps, not quite so much as those complained of), were called upon to suppress the amusements of others, on the ground of cruelty. Now, unless the members of the House were disposed to give up their sports, he saw not how they could interfere with the sports of others. Bear-baiting and badger-baiting might not be very favourable to morality; but the: people might say that it was not very favourable to morality for the higher classes, to assemble on Saturday night and continue till Sunday morning at the Opera; If his hon. friend would legislate—for which he saw no necessity—he would recommend him to fly at higher game, and abolish all cruel sports. The existing law, if enforced, would put an end to the disorderly meetings which his hon. friend complained of, and he could therefore see no ground whatever for the motion.

Mr. J. Smith

said, that, although a part of the ridicule which had been directed against his hon. friend might devolve upon himself, he should nevertheless give the motion his support, and state the reason that induced him to do so. Nothing had been brought forward against the motion which could be fairly called argument. Something had been said which amounted to this—"We are cruel ourselves, and it would be extraordinary for us to prevent cruelty in others." That argument he could not use; for he was not conscious that he was cruel. But, setting aside pleasantry and recrimination, was not the honest truth this—that the cruel sports, to which his hon. friend had directed their attention, did great injury to the comfort, the happiness, and the good order of the people who frequented them? He had no experience personally of these sports; he had never attended them; but he understood, that those who frequented them were the lowest, the most unfortunate, and the most ignorant of the populace. They ought, it was said, to respect the amusements of the poor. No man was disposed to regard with a more favourable eye, the common people than he was; but the practices complained of were injurious to the real comforts and the happiness of those people. If they examined individually the history of those who attended these cruel sports, they would find them persons totally uneducated, that was, as to any moral or religious knowledge, and it might be an objection to his hon. friend's motion, that while such a mass of ignorance existed, they could not put an end to the taste for such amusements, and that the only way to put an end to them and to the race of men who filled the courts of justice with criminals, and the transports with convicts, was to educate the people. So long as the negligence continued, the evil would continue; and he felt it his duty, as an honest man, to lose no opportunity of holding up the evils to the view of parliament. He was sorry not to see present his hon. and learned friend the member for Winchelsea (Mr. Brougham) in his place, who was able so much more forcibly to urge on the House the duty of expending the superfluous money which he was happy to see they possessed, in some plan of general education. As, however, that was not likely to happen, he would support a motion, which would repress the evil, though it might not remove the root of it.

Mr. Secretary Peel

disclaimed any intention to throw ridicule on the motion. There was nothing ludicrous in the subject, though there might be in the way of treating it; and, if his hon. friend himself smiled at the hon. baronet's illustration of his argument from the mode of eating oysters, others might surely be pardoned if their risible muscles were similarly affected. The argument of the hon. gentleman who had last spoken, was this—uneducated people frequent barbarous sports. One of his own conclusions was perfectly just—"Educate the people;" but it was no argument for a special enactment to repress a particular species of amusement. On the contrary, the converse of the argument might be maintainable: in uneducated persons it might be said, an excuse can be found for these unphilosophical and barbarous sports; but educated men, who could derive amusement from literature or other pursuits, were the very individuals who ought to be punished for resorting to cruel sports. If his hon. friend began by laying it down as a principle, that all animals were under the protection of man, why did he limit his claims? Why would he protect the rough bear and the strong bull, who had at least a chance with their adversaries, and leave the unfortunate hare, the partridge, and the snipe, who could not resist their enemies, open to persecution? Why did not his hon. friend put down fox hunting, which was just as cruel as badger-baiting? He could not call upon the House to accede to the motion, merely on the melancholy story of an individual bear, or badger, that had been ill-treated. Every man who pursued field sports must know, that in the course of them a vast deal of unnecessary suffering was inflicted on the animals. It would be easy for him to detail five hundred instances in which animals had suffered extreme pain; but the House would not suffer its judgment to be misled by its feelings so far as to legislate on such grounds. If the House were to act on this principle, they might extend their cares over a very wide field, for there was not a single sport in which animals were concerned that was not in its nature productive of pain and cruelty. How often might it occur, that a man of large fortune, particularly attached to that particular sport, should challenge all England to a grand cock-fight? His hon. friend said, he would put down cock-fighting. This was just what he (Mr. Peel) apprehended. His hon. friend would come to the House, session after session, now with some tale about a cock, and now with one about a bull, and call for enactments on each occasion. Why did he not attack horse-racing? His hon. friend seemed to, say, that he desired him to do so. Now, he did not desire his hon. friend, to do any such thing. What he desired of him was, that he would forbear legislating on such subjects altogether. They were too minute—too much the property of local custom and regulation—to be fit matters for legislation. It was not that he meant to say the people might not be better without them; but even upon that consideration, it did not follow that the enactment which his hon. friend desired, ought to take place. Much might be said (pursuing this principle) in favour of a more extended and vigilant system of police, which, by perpetually communicating between one town and village and another, might greatly tend to diminish crimes and to protect property; but he had no hesitation in saying he liked the existing system with its imperfections better: he preferred England as it was, to what it might be under such an alteration of her police. He liked even the wild luxuriance of the plant; and would be the last to cut and trim it down to the prime precise standard which the hon. gentleman's propositions would go to establish. He would rather that the House should turn its eyes away, than select the sports of the people for penal enactment. The fact was, however, that cruelty was by no means the vice of England, generally. As to what his hon. friend had instanced about the scenes that took place in the neighbourhood of Westminster, he thought him in error upon that point also; for he (Mr. P.) would punish the educated, and not the uneducated individuals who attended on such occasions, upon the principle, that if mischiefs were created, they were attributable to those who should have been aware of the fact; and that the habits and morals of the poor ever follow the course of the morals and habits of the rich. With singular inconsistency the hon. gentleman stated, that those scenes were attended only by the rabble; and in his very next sentence, he lamented the evil example they afforded to the patrician scholars of Westminster who were to be seen there. Could the hon. gentleman doubt who were the proper objects of his censure? But it was evident, that all this time the thing could not be prevented; for nothing would justify magistrates in dispersing a crowd assembled to witness a sport that was not illegal, even if the exhibition of that sport was likely to lead to some bad acts. On what principle did his hon. friend forbear putting down Ascot and Epsom races, to which, however, he annually withdrew himself, with many other members of the House? All the world knew that races were scenes of constant riot and confusion; but they were invariably attended by people of the highest rank and character, as well as by the rabble. He would contend that such amusements ought to be allowed. After the toils of the day, it was proper that there should be some places of relaxation—some species of amusement for the lower order; and if these were sometimes attended by shades of cruelty, it was far better so, than to introduce into the country one rigid system of undeviating morality. But, admitting that all such things were wrong, it was not clear they could be repressed by laws. There were many virtues, such as benevolence and charity, and he believed humanity was amongst them, which could not be inculcated by laws. The House must take care, in legislating, that they did not introduce worse evils than those which they attempted to cure. The arguments urged be the hon. member, as to the poor taking an example from the rich, should teach him, that the effectual way to improve the morals and amusements of the former, was to set about improving those of the latter. The House would do well not to give the world occasion to say, that the rich, in putting down the sports of the poor, preserved their own: or that they Compound for sports they are inclined to, By damning those they have no mind to. They would do well to take care, that in legislating for the abolition of cruelty, they did not introduce new vices among the people. He would like to ask his honourable friend, whether he really believed that there were twenty bears kept for baiting in all England? [Mr. Martin seemed to express an assent.] If his hon. friend could prove that there were twenty he did not think it would alter the case, as to the necessity of putting them within the protection of a statute. Nor could he understand how it happened, that his hon. friend, proposed to spare our alien-enemy, the bear, and to leave out of this amnesty those natural-born subjects, the hare, the partridge, and the pheasant. The powers of inquiry which this House possessed, were notoriously great; and, indeed, they had been not unaptly compared to the proboscis of the elephant; which, possessing sufficient strength to tear up by its roots the oak of the forest, had yet a capacity to select and lift tip the minutest things. On the present occasion, he certainly did not think that those powers could be exerted by the House with dignity, advantage, or propriety. There was one species of cruelty to which his hon. friend had not adverted. It was however—and he said it with sincerity—but too common; he meant the spinning cock-chaffers upon a pin, suspended at the end of a string. In common consistency his hon. friend should bring in a bill to prevent children in future from spinning cock-chaffers. Because he thought that on such a subject legislation was not necessary—would do no good, and would not conduce to the interest of the brute creation, he should refuse his consent to such a legislative enactment as his hon. friend asked for.

Mr. R. Martin

replied, amidst cries of question. The sports, he said, which he had left untouched, did not equal in cruelty those which he wished to prohibit, if they did, he would equally attack them. His right hon. friend therefore, had not answered his arguments. His right hon. friend, said, that shooting was as barbarous as the practices of the Westminster pit, and as tearing animals to pieces. If this were the case, his right hon. friend might like to pay the Westminster pit a visit. He knew his right hon. friend was Very partial to shooting, and indulged in it freely; and he did not see why he should not also indulge a little in the sports of bear-baiting. He was sure the keeper of the Westminster pit, when he should learn what his right hon. friend had said would appropriate a box to the right hon. gentleman, and select some white day for him, when he might with decency attend. He was asked, why not go further, and deal with all kinds of sports? But this was no argument against him. If he could not save on a field of battle 900 men, why should he not save 50 per cent of them; and if he could not save 50 why should he not save 25 or 20 per cent of them? The more there was to be done the less repugnance the House should feel to permit him to do a little. He knew his right hon. friend was laudably addicted to devotion, that he attended constantly to his Church duties, and he could not have done this without having heard the duty of humanity constantly enforced from the pulpit. The most learned divines, and divines the most res- pected for piety, had dwelt the more forcibly on this topic. Some of the most learned divines of the city of London, with whom he was acquainted, had thought to give themselves a claim to preferment by teaching such doctrines; but they would learn from the speech of the right hon. gentleman of that night, how much they were deceived. They thought they did not do their duty unless they enforced humanity; and many of the clergy had joined, perhaps to their cost, in petitions, which he had had the honour to present, to have this nuisance put down by law. He would not, for a very strong reason, press the subject to a division. That reason was, a tenderness for the House, and a regard for its character. There were many gentlemen who had not articulated an opinion on the subject, who would vote against his proposition; and he did not wish their names should go forth to the public in that majority, which he felt he should have against him. Though he believed he should not be left in a very large minority, and was quite sure he should be supported by some of the most distinguished members of the House he would not press his Motion to a division. The question was put, and negatived without a division.