Commons Sitting of 24 February 1825

UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL—PETITIONS FOR AND AGAINST.
Mr. Hutchinsonrose to present the petition of the Roman Catholics of Cork, against the bill for the suppression of the Catholic Association. The petitioners denied that the contribution, known by the name of the Catholic rent, was in any way extorted from the people. It was a voluntary gift, contributed for the moral and religious education of their poor, and in order to obtain redress for the many grievances under which the calumniated peasantry of Ireland laboured. The petitioners hoped parliament would at least allow the Catholic Association to be heard at the bar. This petition came from the largest county in Ireland, and had been agreed to at an aggregate meeting held in Cork, by a body of men as numerous and as respectable as any that had ever assembled. The petitioners felt indignant at the unwarrantable attacks which had been made upon the Catholic Association. That Association had already achieved much good both to Protestants and Catholics, and, with the aid of the priesthood, was the means by which, whilst the people were guarded against oppression on the one hand, they would be kept from expressions of irritation and discontent on the other. A measure like this must be obnoxious at any time; but above all at a period like the present, when peace and tranquillity existed in Ireland. The opponents of the Association argued the question, as if that body and the Roman Catholics generally, were opposed to the Protestants. This was a cruel misrepresentation. It was true that they were opposed to the Orangemen, but they were few in number compared to the thousands who formed the great body of the Protestants of Ireland, and who were as earnest in their prayers for Catholic emancipation as the most zealous Catholic could be.
Mr. Abercrombypresented a petition from the parish of St. Andrew, Dublin, against the bill; and adverted to a petition from certain Presbyterians of Tyrone, complaining that the Association were the authors of the rapine, and murders and bloodshed in Ireland. Now, the petition

647
from St. Andrew's, as well as the Speech from the throne at the opening of the session, directly contradicted this assertion, as Ireland had never been so tranquil as at this moment.
Sir J. Newportadverted to a document in the possession of the House of Lords, stating, on the authority of the viceroy of Ireland, that the peace of that country was to be attributed to the exertions of the Catholic Association. He stated that such a document existed, on the authority of the marquis of Lansdown. He should move to-morrow that it be laid before the House.
Mr. Peelsaid, that under any circumstances it would be laid before the committee on the state of Ireland.
Mr. Denmanpresented a petition in favour of the Association, asserting that the Association had been productive of the present tranquillity in Ireland. The learned member expressed his conviction that the Association, as far as the administration of the law was concerned, had done much good and no injury.
Sir T. Lethbridgewas not so much surprised at the statements of petitions, as that hon. members should coincide with them. In his opinion, both reckoned without their host, when they said that the tranquillity of Ireland was owing to the Association. Who could say to what extent the Association might go, if ministers, in mercy to the whole Catholic body, did not put a stop to its proceedings? The Association was self-elected, and uncontrolled. Those who said it had done no injury, were not, in his opinion, true friends of the Catholics.
Mr. Humesaid, that, notwithstanding all that had been said by the right hon. Secretary, and which had had the effect of having the walls partially placarded, the more the question of emancipation was understood by the people of England, the more was it likely to succeed. An attempt had been made by the speech of the right hon. Secretary, to raise a cry against the Roman Catholics; but fortunatety that attempt had not succeeded.
Mr. Peeldenied that he had sounded an alarm on the subject of the emancipation of the Catholics, and that through his interference the walls of the metropolis had been placarded. He had never encouraged the presenting a single petition against the claims of the Catholics in the whole course of his life; and never wished to see a petition, on that or any
648
other subject presented to the House, unless it was the spontaneous act of the persons by whom it was signed. Ordered to lie on the table.

NORFOLK ASSIZES.
Colonel Wodehouserose to submit to the House a motion respecting the removal of the Spring Assizes for Norfolk from Thetford to the city of Norwich. The grounds upon which this motion was made were already before the House in a petition which had been presented from the county. The main grievance complained of was, that the petitioners were under the necessity of carrying the prisoners a distance of SO miles from the gaol to the place at which they were to be tried, and if they happened to be convicted, the same distance back again to the gaol. This evil had existed for a length of time, and representations of it had frequently been made, but without procuring any alteration. There was, however, no time at which the desired alteration could be more properly made than the present. A large and commodious gaol had lately been erected in Norwich, at an expense of 50,000 l. It was arranged in such a manner as to carry the provisions of the Gaol act into complete operation, and to combine all the advantages which were supposed to result from the classification and inspection of prisoners. Upon former occasions it had been objected to the removal of the assizes, that to do so would be to interfere with a branch of the prerogative. He denied, however, that the prerogative was concerned in the measure he proposed. The places at which the assizes for counties were held, had been in all instances fixed by acts of parliament. That by which Thetford was appointed for Norfolk, was passed six centuries ago. There was at that period a reason for such an arrangement which did not now exist. One assize was then held for the two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk; and Thetford, being upon the extreme border of the latter, was well situated for the purpose. Applications had been made to the chancellor, and to the judges, who had declined to change the assizes. It was, in consequence, imputed to them, that they were induced by merely selfish motives; but he could not bring himself to believe, that persons holding the high offices which they were intrusted with, could prefer their own convenience to that of the public. The hon. member concluded by moving, "that

649
the petition of certain magistrates and others of the county of Norfolk, praying that the Spring Assizes should be removed from Thetford to Norwich, be referred to a select committee; and that the counter-petition of the mayor and burgesses of Thetford be referred to the same committee."
Sir J. Sebrightsupported the motion. He bore testimony to the insufficient state of the gaol at Thetford, and thought that the circumstance of the prisoners being carried a distance of SO miles to take their trial, was in itself enough to induce the House to grant the prayer of the petition. The due administration of justice was immediately concerned in this affair. The question, in fact, was, the borough of Thetford against the county of Norfolk; or borough interests against the principles of morality and public convenience.
Mr. N. R. Colborneopposed the motion. The same application had been, he said, repeatedly made, and had always failed. The assizes for Norfolk had been held at Thetford for more than six centuries. Unless a very strong case could be made out, no alteration should be attempted. He thought there could not be a more direct attack upon the prerogative, than was meditated by this measure. It would be no less so, than it would be to interfere with the appointment of lord-lieutenants or the sheriffs of counties. He should content himself with having called the attention of the Secretary of state for the Home Department to this point, and here leave it. The petition which he had presented, prayed that the House would not permit any interference in the ancient practice which had prevailed. That petition was signed by 48 magistrates of the county, eight of whom had served the office of high sheriff; snd it was impossible to collect names entitled to more weight on such a topic.
Mr. F. Buxtonsaid, that as the petition in favour of the proposed removal of the assizes proceeded from the lord-lieutenant, the sheriffs, and a large body of the magistracy, it might reasonably be supposed to convey the sentiments of those who were best qualified to pronounce on the expediency of the proposed measure. The important question for the House to consider was, however, whether the administration of justice was impeded by the assizes being held at Thetford? The general convenience of the county would be, as it ought to be, more considered
650
than that of the judges; and the interests of justice more than those of the borough of Thetford. The fact of the prisoners being carried in an open waggon, a distance of 30 miles, thus making them a spectacle for the whole county, was in itself sufficient to induce the House to put a stop to such a practice. But, the evil did not end here. When the prisoners arrived at Thetford, they were placed in a prison, which, if he were to describe, would shock and offend the House. If a prisoner had to bring up witnesses from the remote parts of the county, they would have to travel 50 miles, the difficulty of doing which, it might be believed, not unfrequently prevented their attempting the journey. If the man was convicted, he was then conveyed back again, exposed to the curiosity and unfeeling remarks of the people of the country through which he might have to pass. He spoke not from hearsay, but of what he had actually seen. Let the House suppose, that Fauntleroy had been placed in this situation, would it not have been highly improper that he should have been so exposed? [An hon. member said, "It would have served him right."] He (Mr. B.) denied that it would have served him right: the law had fixed for his, and for every other criminal's offence, a certain punishment, beyond which it was not just to extend a prisoner's sufferings. For these reasons, and not for any private interest he had in the question, he should support the motion.
Mr. Baringobjected to the motion, because if it were adopted in this instance, it must also be applied to a great many other counties.
Mr. Secretary Peelobjected to the motion, on the ground, that the House had no proper jurisdiction in the case. The question had been referred to the chancellor and the judges, who had decided against it. He was of opinion that the consideration of questions such as the present, with which local interests were mixed up, could not be left in better hands.
Dr. Lushingtoncomplained, that the right hon. Secretary had not stated the grounds upon which the decision of the judges was founded. It appeared to him, that there was no just reason for holding the assizes at Thetford. The present plan was calculated to promote the interests of the few to the disadvantage of the many. The assizes were originally held at Thet-

651
ford, because it was the most convenient place; but now, when that reason no longer existed, why should they not be removed? The most serious inconvenience existed from the practice of trying prisoners fifty miles from the points at which the offences were committed.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the House of Commons was not the place for appeals of this description. The law had vested the necessary power in the hands of the lord chancellor and the judges. As for the distance of Thetford, as an assize town, almost every. county in England stood in the same situation. Prisoners were brought much further to York, and to Lancaster, than they could be from any part of the county of Norfolk to Thetford.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that the only argument which had been urged against the measure was, that the same inconveniences existed in other parts of the kingdom. Now this was, in his opinion, one of the strongest reasons for inquiring into the subject.
The House divided: Ayes 21. Noes 72.

EXPORT OF TOOLS AND MACHINERY.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved for the re-appointment of the select committee, to examine the laws respecting the Export of Tools and Machinery. The committee which sat last year had recommended the repeal of the Combination laws, and the abolition of the laws restricting artisans from going abroad; and they further recommended the appointment of the committee for which he was now moving. This was a question which has hitherto been involved in great obscurity: various prejudices had existed on the subject, but those prejudices were gradually disappearing. From the evidence of the Custom-house officers, it was proved, that it was most difficult to distinguish between what was prohibited and what was allowed to be exported. During the last year much prohibited machinery had been exported. In France, the duty imposed upon English machinery allowed to be exported was 35 per cent, whereas upon making oath that the article had been smuggled, there was no difficulty in having it admitted. The pretence for preventing many, of those articles from being exported was, that they required the utmost nicety, in the manufacture; although it was well known that, in a great many instances, they were executed by mere boys, who, were learning their
652
trade. Many of the prohibitions were perfectly useless; such, for instance, as the coining machine. In the machinery used for the manufacture of cloth there was no prohibition, which principally extended to the cotton manufactories. He trusted that in the committee, such satisfactory evidence would be adduced, as would satisfy the most scrupulous and doubtful; for however anxious he was that the measure should pass, he was by no means desirous to pass it in opposition to existing prejudices, if they were general. There appeared to him no reason whatever for preventing the export of machinery, when we permitted the free transit of artisans, who could in foreign countries do the same workmanship as at home.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he should give his concurrence to the motion, first, because he thought that any laws which could not be executed ought not to continue in force, although it might be a question; whether such laws should be wholly abrogated, or only amended; and, secondly, because he quite agreed, that it would be improper to press any legislative measure, in opposition to the sense and feelings of those whose interests might be affected; At the same time, he was bound to say; that those parties greatly overstated the consequences which, in his judgment, were likely to ensue. He had taken upon himself to exercise a discretion which, although perhaps not strictly legal, he hoped the House would not consider criminal, in allowing the export of some articles of machinery, such as the Hydraulic presses, and others, against the prohibition of which all mankind agreed. At present, so great was the demand for machinery, in many branches, that, with all the hands that could be procured, the orders could not be executed for eighteen months to come. Upon these grounds, he thought the re-appointment of the committee would be a great advantage; and he requested the hon. member, who would naturally take a leading part in the proceedings of that committee, to turn his earnest attention to all those points in which parties felt that their interests would be principally affected.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.

REMOVAL OF BRITISH-BORN SUBJECTS FROM INDIA.
Mr. Humerose to submit the motion of which he had given

653
notice. The practice to which he had to advert was one which, though it could not be said to obstruct our trade with India, was calculated to limit the advantages which we might derive from our possession of that country. It was well known that the India Company, by itself, or its governors and presidents, had the power of banishing any person who interfered with the trade of that country. This power continued until the 53 Geo. III., by which the trade was, in a great measure, thrown open to all British subjects trading from England. The preamble of that act set forth the advantages which might be derived from an opening of the India trade (with the exception of that to China) to the enterprise of British capital and industry. If he understood this act rightly, it was intended to give a vent to the capital of Great Britain, but the practice which had since grown up, was, he thought, quite in opposition to the spirit of that act. It was understood, that all those who went to India were to be subject to the regulations of the company; but those regulations ought not to be in opposition to the spirit of the law. That law declared, in substance, that no man was to be removed by the mere freak or whim of any governor or president in India, and that such removal should only be ordered in cases where the presence of the particular individual was considered as likely to disturb the tranquillity of any part of that country. He would, in a short time, move for an account of the number of persons to whom permission to remain in the country had been refused; but at present he would confine himself to a complaint against the power which the company exercised under this law. He knew that nearly half of those at present trading and residing in India had not a regular licence to remain. They had been permitted to remain and to trade; but it mattered not, in his opinion, whether a man had a licence to remain or not; he ought, if he was settled there, to be allowed to remain; and it was an act of injustice, and against the spirit of the act, to send him away. Many persons who had been settled in India, and had a prosperous trade there, had had their prospects entirely ruined by being sent out of the country. This had been the case, in many instances, under the government of Mr. Adam and lord Amherst. They had sent several individuals out of the country, without trial or cause assigned. Many of those persons
654
had been long settled in it, and their banishment was an act of great cruelty and injustice. He knew it was said, that the exercise of such a power was justified by the act of parliament. If it were so, such an act was against justice and policy. It was not necessary for his purpose, to detail acts of this kind, which had originated in personal feelings and motives. Leaving such cases out of consideration, he would assert, that the effects of the general practice was, that no person in any of the presidencies dare express his opinions, if those persons should be hostile to the government. Some governors were, he knew, more liberal in this respect than others. Lord Hastings, for instance, did not think it beneath him, to submit his conduct to the opinions of the European population in India; and though the proceedings of the noble lord, in this instance, was not quite pleasing to the government at home, yet it showed his liberal feeling on the subject. The conduct of governor Adam and of lord Amherst in this respect was quite different. They had sent away from India certain individuals, for the expression of opinions, through the medium of the press; and had enacted such restrictions on the press in general, that a great gloom was cast over the public mind in that country; and the fear of deportation was so prevalent, that no man dared to express his real sentiments upon what was passing. The consequence was, that the people of this country were, generally speaking, as ignorant of what was passing in India as of what was doing in Japan. A war was now raging in India, and yet the English public knew scarcely any thing about it. The effects of this system of restriction on the press were seen in the deportation of Mr. Buckingham from India, and in the atrocious conduct pursued towards Mr. Arnot. After such conduct, if the persons at present connected with the press, wished to remain in India, they must remain silent on all subjects the discussion of which might be displeasing to the government there. He had in his possession two notes sent to individuals connected with the press of India, cautioning them against any notice of the case of Mr. Buckingham, or of the conduct of the government in general. Such a system was contrary to the spirit of the regulations established when the courts of Calcutta were formed in 1775. It had been lately the fashion to say, that the British possessions in India hung by a thread.

655
This he denied. He thought that while we maintained an army of 250,000 men in that country, it was impossible that we should lose our possessions there But the best way to ensure the permanence of our power there, would be to allow public discussion and exposure of delinquencies through the medium of the press. If that were prevented, mischiefs of the most serious nature would ensue. It was the most impolitic course which could be pursued to prevent Englishmen from embarking their capital in that country, and of establishing there a regular system of colonization. He knew that that word would startle the prejudices of many persons, but still it was a system, which, in the result, would be found most advantageous to our interests in that country. He should now move, That there be laid before this House, an account of the number of British-born or other European subjects, whose removal from the different presidencies of India has been at any time officially threatened, or actually carried into effect, by the civil authorities there, or by orders from the court of Directors; distinguishing whether such persons had been in the king's or company's service, or residing in India, with or without a licence; and stating the names of such persons so threatened or actually transported, the dates of such occurrences, and the alleged cause of such threatened or actual transportation; and stating also whether the same have been attended with personal arrest or imprisonment, and for what period and where; and whether preceded or followed by judicial proceedings of any description, in India or in England, since 1784."
Mr. Wynnsaid, it was not his intention to follow the hon. member through the extensive field over which he had travelled. The important question of the civilization of India was too extensive to be taken up collaterally. Whenever it was submitted to the House, he should not hesitate to declare his opinion. With respect to the present question, the House were bound to respect the laws as they now existed. By the act of 1793, it was declared a misdemeanor for any man to be in India without the licence of the East India Company. The act of 1813, which opened the trade of India very considerably, reserved the same power, and commanded the same prohibitions. As the law existed, a governor-general was bound, when he permitted a European
656
subject not having a licence to settle in India, to enter a special reason upon record for so permitting him. This was the most easy and natural mode of proceeding; for every gentleman would see that it would be very hard indeed upon the governor-general to call upon him to state his reasons for sending an individual away. The hon. member had also said, that no person could go to India without the special leave of the court of Directors; thereby insinuating that it was matter of some difficulty to obtain it. He held in his hand a list of the applications which had been made for such leave since 1814. The number of applications in that time was 963: of these 743 had met with a successful issue from the court of Directors, and 41 with the same from the Board of Control; so that, in the whole period, there had not been more than 179 refusals. The hon. member had found fault with the act, because it provided that a man without a licence might be removed by the governor-general. Now, no man could be removed by the governor-general alone, but only by the governor-general in council. Every member of the council had a right to state his opinion with regard to the propriety of removal, and thus there was some control upon that arbitrary exercise of power against which the hon. member had declaimed. With respect to the motion itself, he was extremely willing to give all the information it sought in substance; but he felt it due to the individuals themselves not to return names which might individually affect persons who, after a number of years, could not contemplate such a disclosure. He should, therefore, move, as an amendment, for "a return of all persons removed from India, or ordered to quit India, since 1784, by any of the governments there, on the ground of being found in India without a licence from the court of Directors of the East India Company, or other lawful cause:—also, a return of all persons whose licence or permission to reside in India has been revoked by any of the governments, specifying the ground of such revocation, and distinguishing such persons as have been removed from India by order of such governments; stating whether such removal has been preceded by personal arrest or imprisonment, for what period and where, and whether the same has been preceded or followed by any judicial proceeding in India or England."
The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

BEAR-BATING PREVENTION BILL.
Mr. Martin, of Galway, rose to move for leave "to bring in a bill to prevent Bear-baiting, and other cruel practices." He submitted his motion with perfect confidence of its success; because, in the interval which had elapsed since the last session, he had conversed with every alderman of the city of London, with almost every police magistrate in the metropolis, and with many magistrates in different parts of the country, and had collected from their conversation that it was their unanimous opinion, that these cruel practices ought to be put down. He had been told by them, that nothing was more conducive to crime than such sports; that they led the lower orders to gambling; that they educated them for thieves; and that they gradually trained them up to bloodshed and murder. The reason why the police could not meddle with these practices was, that they were not in general exhibited for money. He held, however, in his hand an affiche, which would bring the sports under the notice of the police, since it fixed a price upon the ticket which was required for admission to them. It announced that "Billy, the phenomenon of the canine race, and superior vermin-killer," would go through his wonderful performances on Tuesday next, and that the receipts of the pit would on that evening be presented to the distressed widow of Billy's late proprietor. It then stated, that "a dogfight—a turn-loose match with two dogs and two fresh badgers—and a drawing match," would follow this astounding spectacle; and that several dogs would then be tried at a bear previous to their being sent out upon their travels to foreign climes. The doors were to be open at seven, the performance to begin at half-past, and the admittance to be 3s. each. The whole of the sports were said to be instituted by the "express invitation of several noblemen and gentlemen of the first distinction." He expected that this declaration would secure to him the vote of the learned member for Winchelsea. On a former occasion, that learned member had said, that he (Mr. M.) meddled only with the sports of the poor, and turned away his eyes from those of the rich. He did no such thins; but was equally anxious to meddle with both, when he found them opposed to the dictates of humanity. The learned member had said, "Show me that the nobility take
658
part in those sports, and I will join with all my heart in putting them down." He was sorry to say, that some persons of rank and name did patronize these cruel practices. The persons to whom he alluded, deserved to be stigmatized with severer reprobation than the poorer classes, against whom alone his bill was said to be directed. Their education ought to have given them feelings averse to cruelty and bloodshed, and to have taught them that their example would be of vast importance in propagating such feelings among their inferiors. He therefore trusted that the learned member would redeem the pledge he had given him, and would give his strenuous support to the bill. He could see no rational objection that could be urged against it. By the Marylebone act all bear-baiting and other barbarous sports were prohibited within that parish: and it appeared to him difficult to assign any reason why, if that parish was to be exempt from such inhuman exhibitions, the parishes of St. George and of St. Margaret, or of any other saint, were to be disgraced and disgusted by them. It was not, however, merely bear-baiting, and sports of a similar nature, that he wished to abolish: there were other practices, equally cruel, with which he thought the legislature ought to interfere. There was a Frenchman of the name of Majendie, whom he considered a disgrace to society. In the course of last year, this man, at one of the anatomical theatres, exhibited a series of experiments so atrocious as almost to shock belief. He would not trust himself to express a further opinion upon this fellow's conduct, but would merely say that he looked upon those who witnessed it without interfering to prevent it, almost in the light of criminals. This Mr. Majendie got a lady's grey-hound, for which he paid ten guineas. He first of all nailed its front, and then its hind paws to the table, with the bluntest spikes that he could find, giving as a reason for so doing, that the poor beast in its agonies might tear away from the spikes, if they were at all sharp and cutting. He then doubled up its long ears, and nailed them down to the same table with similar spikes [cries, of "hear," and "shame"]. He then made a gash down the middle of its face, and proceeded to dissect the nerves on one side of it. First of all, he cut out those nerves which belong to the sight, and whilst performing that operation, said

659
to the spectators, "Observe when I pass my scalpel over these nerves, the dog will shut its eyes." It did so. He then proceeded to operate upon those of taste and hearing. After he had finished those operations, he put some bitter food on the tongue of the dog, and hallooed into his ear. The dog repudiated the food, and was insensible to the sound. This surgical butcher, or butchering surgeon—for he deserved both names—then turned round to the spectators, and said, "I have now finished my operations on one side of this dog's head; as it costs so much money to get an animal of this description, I shall reserve the other side till to-morrow. If the servant takes care of him for the night, according to the directions I have given him, I am of opinion that I shall be able to continue my operations upon him to-morrow, with quite as much satisfaction to us all as I have done to-day; but if not, though he may have lost the vivacity he has shown to-day, I shall have the opportunity of cutting him up alive, and showing you the peristaltic motion of the heart and viscera" [Great disgust at the statement of this cruel experiment was manifested by the House.] He was aware of the necessity of making some experiments on living animals; but then they should be performed in such a manner as to cause as little suffering as possible. That was the opinion of the most eminent professors. He held in his hand the written declarations of Mr. Abemethy, of sir Everard Home, of the professors of medicine at Cambridge and Oxford, and of several other respectable medical gentlemen, to that effect. They all, he believed, united in condemnation of such excessive and protracted cruelty as had been practised by this Frenchman. He had heard that this fellow was again coming to this country to repeat his experiment. He therefore had mentioned it to the House, in the hope that it would gain publicity, and excite against the perpetrator of such unnecessary cruelty the odium he merited. He trusted that when it was known, the fellow would not find persons to attend his lectures, and would thus be compelled to wing his way back to his own country, to find in it a theatre for such abominable atrocities. After some further observations, he concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.
Sir M. W. Ridleycould not but express his horror at the incidents narrated; but he thought the hon. member had in-
660
troduced matter which was not applicable on the present occasion. It was true, the Mary-la-bonne act rendered the practices alluded to, misdemeanors; but they came, in his opinion, under the cognizance of the magistrates, in all cases where they operated as a nuisance. He should oppose this bill, because he considered legislation on such paltry subjects both unnecessary and uncalled for.
Mr. Martinsaid, that all the magistrates of the metropolis called for a law to put down these practices as a nuisance. Was not their call entitled to some respect? It was discreditable to any member, to rise and say, not that he would negative the bill when it was brought in, but that he would not permit it to be canvassed at all in parliament. Would any man get up and boldly say, "I am such an amateur of cruelty, that I will not even allow a measure to be discussed which tends to abolish it?" Such language no man would dare to utter; and yet, what had been said that evening approximated to it. He was afraid he should be defeated upon this bill; but if he was, the glory would be with him, and the disgrace with those who vanquished him. He was, however, confident that at some future period it would be passed into law. He would not say that it would meet with that success whilst under his direction; but if the gentlemen opposite would take it up, as they had done his bill for giving counsel to prisoners accused of felony, he would willingly surrender it into their hands.
Mr. Gordonsaid, he must consider this a degree of petty legislation, when questions of so much more importance were before the House.
Mr. F. Buxtondid not think the subject so insignificant as not to deserve the notice of the House. The hon. mover had conferred an essential benefit upon the community by his continued exertions in the cause of humanity. His former bill had already produced a beneficial change in the manners of the lower orders, and was far from having produced that unnecessary litigation which some gentlemen had anticipated. The prosecutions which had been instituted under it were 71 in number; and in 69 cases convictions had been obtained. He had heard from those who attended Smithfield-market, that a great revolution had taken place in it, owing to the exertions of the hon. member. Even those who were the first subjects of

661
his attacks, had recently come forward to subscribe to the society for preventing Cruelty to Animals.
Alderman Bridgessupported the bill, and gave his concurrence to the statements of the hon. mover.
Mr. Butterworthhoped the hon. member for Galway would extend the powers of his bill to the savage, abominable, and unchristian practice of prize-fighting, which had led in many recent instances to the loss of life.
The House divided: Ayes 41. Noes 29.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
The House resolved itself into a committee on the Navy Estimates. On the resolution, "That 54,886 l. be granted for the Salaries and Contingencies of the Admiralty Office,"
Sir J. Yorkewished to ask, why the salary of the private secretary to the first lord had been increased from 300 l. to 510 l. per annum. He saw no reason for this, when it had been found prudent to reduce the number of lords of the Admiralty. He was surprised, that, in this great and powerful country, he could only find a reduction, on all the boards, of 3,500 l. Would his hon. friends say, that one commissioner of the Victualling or Navy board, or one lord of the Treasury had been reduced? No; the whole reduction was one Post-master and two lords of the Admiralty. He thought, if the hon. baronet who had brought forward the motion for the reduction of the lords of Admiralty were to reconsider the matter, he would be disposed to vote for their being re-appointed. He wished to see an additional 2,000 l. added to this part of the estimates, to restore the two lords, as without that they were not fairly dealt by.
On the motion for agreeing to that part of the report which recommends granting the sum of 538,306 l. for the dockyards, &c.
Mr. Humecomplained of going on, year after year, expending millions of money in building ships, only to lie and rot. It was not proper to pass such estimates. For the years 1823, 1824, 1825, the amount had been the same as 1817. The expense of buildings in the dockyards, &c. ought to be checked. Since 1811, we had expended on the dock-yards 4,853,000 l.; and for works connected with them 1,587,000 l.; making a total of 6,400,000 l. expended on nothing but brick and mortar. One year there was
662
an estimate for 600,000 l., another year for 500,000 l., and then the year after for 800,000 l. It appeared that no system was followed, and that some estimate or plan should be followed, and the money not expended as some lord of the Admiralty took a fancy to build. Since 1815, twenty-three millions had been expended on building and repairing ships that were only kept to rot. It would be better to give pensions to every workman in the dock-yards, if it were the object to employ them, than thus to waste money on ship-building.
Sir G. Cockburndid not believe the hon. member could be correct in his statements. Peace was the time for putting our dock-yards, in a good state: during war it was impossible to do it.
On the resolution for granting for the Naval college, the sum of 6,252 l.,
Sir J. Yorkeinquired if it was intended to keep that college up to its full extent, as he understood that one of the pupils, Mr. Bonnycastle, had left this country and gone to America. He approved of science being taught, but charity, he thought, began at home; and we ought not to pay for the education of young men who were to carry their scientific acquirements to another state.
Mr. Crokerreplied, that every student was obliged to give a bond of 500 l. that they would remain in the king's service. He did not see what other security could betaken from them; and if Mr. Bonnycastle chose to forfeit his bond, he did not know how that was to be prevented.
The resolutions were agreed to.