Commons Sitting of 11 March 1825

ST. CATHERINE'S DOCKS BILL.
Mr. C. Calvert Mr. C. Calvert moved, "That all persons who came to the Committee on this bill have voices."
Mr. Grenfelldeprecated the motion for an open, after the House had appointed a select, committee. From what he had seen of the practice of gentlemen in committees, corning in at the close of the day

991
and voting on matters which they had never heard discussed, he thought that the interests of any bill would be better attended to by a select than an open committee. This he considered a very unfair attempt, and he would make a stand against it.
Mr. Humethought, that, after a select committee had been appointed on a bill, it was not quite fair to move that it be an open one, without giving a notice of such motion.
Mr. Calvertwas anxious to have this an open committee, as all others upon which opinions were much divided. It would tend to put an end to the system of canvassing for votes, which had already been carried to such a height. For his own part, he had never canvassed for a vote in those committees. He wished other members could say as much.
Mr. Sumnersaid, that the members already appointed were quite sufficient.
Lord Folkestonesaid, that as to the objection of several members coming in and voting at the close of the day without having heard the evidence, he did not see how that could be remedied, unless by some law of the House, which would oblige all members to hear every thing which was said upon a question before they voted on it. This, perhaps, would not be found very convenient in the House itself; where large bodies of the members were seen coming down at a late hour to vote on a question, of the arguments on which they had heard not a word. He could not see why an opposition should be made to having this an open committee.
Mr. Alderman Heygatecomplained, that none but those known to be favourable to the bill were selected upon it, while not a single member representing places whose interests were hostile to it was named. He therefore would vote, that the committee should be an open one. Indeed, he should wish to see all committees on private bills open, or appointed by the House itself; and not by the members interested in the bill.
Mr. Huskissonexpressed himself favourable to the bill, as he thought the accommodations which those docks would afford were required by the commercial interests of London and the ports; but, as those interests were very general, he would not wish to limit the number on the committee. He therefore would support the motion, that all who came have voices.
992
At the same time he could not but deprecate those daily discussions, in which motives were attributed to hon. members, while acting in the discharge of duties imposed upon them by others.
The motion was agreed to.

METROPOLITAN WATER-WORKS COMPANY.
The Sheriffs of London presented a petition of the corporation against this bill.
Mr. Alderman Woodthought the House was not aware of the manner in which this new company proposed to furnish the water. It was intended to dig wells throughout the metropolis, by which means every private pump would be deprived of water. This fact only came to the knowledge of the corporation recently, and they thought it right to oppose the measure, for the interests of the public at large.
Mr. Calvertexpressed his apprehensions that these wells, or pits, would be ineffectual, as a means of supplying water, and that, at the same time, they would be injurious, by destroying the supply of water from springs, to several public establishments.
Mr. M. A. Taylorobserved, that the House might judge of the manner in which some of those new speculations were got up, when he informed them, that the very first intimation he ever received of the existence of this water-company, was his having seen it in a newspaper, where it was ushered to the world, as being under his special sanction. It was true, a gentleman called on him some time before, and, to his great surprise, asked for his opinion about all the water-works and wells in London. He told him what he knew on the subject, and the gentleman immediately observed, that he had a plan for procuring from wells sunk in the city and its vicinity, water of the very purest quality, inferior only to claret as a beverage. He then showed him some plans, by which it was proposed to sink those wells. He asked the gentleman, whether he had considered the depths to which he might have to sink, and the difficulties attending the undertaking? To which he replied, that he had, but he was certain, that with his assistance, they should get through. He then advised the gentleman to take a walk in St. George's-fields, as he was of opinion there was a building in that vicinity well adapted to his frame of mind. Notwithstanding all

993
this, he was put forth to the world as giving his sanction to this most extraordinary measure.

QUARANTINE LAWS—PETITION OF DR. MACLEAN.
Mr. John Smithpresented a petition from Dr. Charles Maclean on the subject of the Quarantine Laws. The hon. member bore testimony generally to the capability of Dr. Maclean for discussing the subject upon which he petitioned. There was no man's opinion, upon such a question, by which he would more readily be guided.
Mr. Wallacethought it fit that every attention should be given to prevent abuse, or unnecessary inconvenience, from the operation of the Quarantine laws; but he should look with great jealousy at any proposal either materially to alter or to remove them. It should be recollected, that dealing with the Quarantine laws was not regulating a principle, or arrangement, of trade. A single inadvertency might introduce the plague into the country, and be attended with consequences for which remedy would be impossible.
Mr. John Smithsaid, he by no means proposed the repeal of the Quarantine laws.
The petition was then read, setting forth,
"That, Quarantine laws, purporting to be for the preservation of the public health, are founded, on the belief that epidemic diseases depend upon a specific contagion; that their object is, to prevent the introduction and spreading of epidemic maladies generally, but more especially of plague and yellow fever; that the means which they employ are bills of health, quarantine, and lazarettos, and in general every mode of separation, seclusion, and restriction; that this system originated in ignorant and credulous times, has been continued without proof, and rests at this moment upon no other foundations than the assumptions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; that with respect to yellow fever the doctrine of contagion has, by the experienced part of the medical faculty, been for some time abandoned, and that even those who still persist in maintaining it, admit that precautions against this disease are unnecessary in England; that the petitioner trusts he shall be able, even within the compass of a petition, to adduce to the House sufficiently strong grounds for concluding that plague cannot be propagated
994
by contact, that its cause is incapable of being imported, that that cause cannot therefore be a specific contagion, and consequently that Quarantine laws are without an object; that in a Plague-hospital of Constantinople in 1815 the result of a free intercourse upon a large scale between the sick, and persons in health, was proof that the disease is incapable of being propagated by contact, arithmetically as nineteen to one, and that other unequivocal instances of a similar result are within the knowledge of the petitioner; that during the 140 years in which the commerce with Turkey was carried on by the Levant company, previous to the establishment of Quarantine in this country, as well as during the 104 years in which Quarantine has existed, in all 244 years, no disease has been occasioned in consequence of importation by ships, or goods, or persons, into England; that with respect to the last great epidemic of London in 1665, which happened in the interval, 159 years ago, its phanomena have distinctly assigned to it a place amongst epidemics, excluding it, of course, from the number of contagious diseases, the laws of these two classes of maladies being not only dissimilar but opposed; that contagions not being limited to soil, it would have been quite impossible, did the supposed virus exist, that it should not have been in a constant course of importation in the 20,000 vessels that must have arrived in British ports during the first of the above periods, from countries liable to epidemic diseases, and in the 30,000 vessels that must have arrived during the last of these periods, could communities survive such ordeals; that the petitioner humbly submits that the entire absence from sickness among the crews and passengers of 50,000 vessels in 214 years, and among the expurgators of goods in 30,000 vessels in 104 years in England, is proof that pestilential contagion had not been shipped in any one of these vessels, for if it had been shipped it could not have invariably become extinct on the passage, nor could Quarantine have pre-vented its affecting the persons on board, and that it had not been shipped in any one of the numerous cargoes which were imported during that long period of time from countries, in some of which epidemic diseases were almost constantly prevailing, is proof that it does not any where exist; that the House will readily perceive that a specific contagion could not continue to

995
prevail for a long series of years in any one country, without its being conveyed to every other with which that country had intercourse, whether by sea or land; that the non-importation of the cause of plague into England by sea, and into Persia by land, at those times in which it was raging in Turkey, is therefore a most unequivocal proof that that cause is not a specific contagion; that, to reconcile these and other contradictions with which the system abounds, or rather of which it is composed, the doctrines have been invented of susceptible persons, susceptible goods, susceptible seasons, and susceptible countries, of which the House will not fail at once to perceive the absurdity; that, with a similar view, it has been assumed that the supposed virus of pestilence possesses the faculties of self-generation, sleeping, waking, dying, resuscitating, with many other properties equally marvellous; that, in principle, Quarantine laws very much resemble our ancient laws against witchcraft, recently repealed, with this material difference in practice, that whilst they are infinitely more destructive, they have not, however, fallen into disuse; that, as the petitioner has proved at large in works which are before the public, these laws are, in times of pestilence, a powerful additional cause of sickness and mortality, as well as in other respects highly injurious to many of the best interests of communities; that they impede science, produce immorality, obstruct travelling, restrict commerce, navigation, and manufactures, occasion the failure of expeditions and the destruction of armaments, are injurious to the general consumer and the public revenue, and are capable of being, as they have sometimes been on the continent of Europe, rendered subservient to the purposes of despotism; that the detriment which has been sustained by this nation in direct charges of Quarantine, in losses by detention of ships, goods, crews, and passengers, and in consequence of restraints upon commerce and navigation generally, during the 104 years that this singular system has been in operation, must have been enormous; that at home, only, the annual direct charges of Quarantine have for the last 20 years averaged nearly 30,000 l., and that the losses by detention of ships and cargoes, according to the number (857) detained last year, may be computed at about 200,000 l. annually, independent of similar charges and losses, probably in a greater
996
degree in the colonies; that the evils of these restrictions are incomparably greater in countries where, from the more frequent recurrence of pestilence, they affect life, as in our colonies in the Mediterranean, than where, from its less frequent occurrence, they, for the most part, only affect property, as in England; and that their operation in the colonies is the more calamitous from the dread habitually entertained of pestilential contagion by the inhabitants; that the dread of being abandoned, and the consequences of actual abandonment, when a person is seized with the disease, prove almost certainly fatal; and that many of our friends and relations in the colonies have thus become the victims of deplorable delusion; that in this point of view the delay of even a single season in putting an end to this system would, the petitioner humbly apprehends, be matter of infinite regret; since, were a pestilence of any severity in the mean time to occur in the colonies, many lives and much property might be sacrificed: the Petitioner therefore most humbly prays that the House will be pleased to repeal the Quarantine laws, being without an object, as an absolutely demonstrated evil, as a code eminently anti-commercial, anti-social, and anti-christian; or, should doubts still remain sufficiently strong, in the opinion of the House, to justify hesitation; that the House will be pleased, before any legislative measure of a permanent character shall be adopted on the subject, to direct the public mind, being now better prepared for the discussion and for any consequent change, to a new investigation into all the obtainable facts which may bear on either side of the question, respecting the validity of the doctrines of pestilential contagion."
Ordered to lie on the table.

DUTIES ON THE IMPORTATION OF IRON, COPPER, & C
Mr. Lawleypresented a Petition from the Chamber of Commerce at Birmingham, for a Reduction of the Duties on Iron, Copper, and other metals.
Mr. Littletonsupported the petition.
Mr. Whitmoreconcurred in the prayer of the petition. The measures which ministers had taken to remove the shackles which had hitherto impeded our commerce, were fraught with wisdom, and merited the warmest approbation of the country.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he should, at no

997
distant day, have an opportunity of stating fully to the House the views of his majesty's government with respect to the introduction of that material, which formed one of the most essential branches of our manufactures, as well as of other minerals. The views of the government would continue to be sedulously directed to the removal of those duties which were called protecting, but which were, in fact, the greatest impediments to the extension of our commerce. The hon. member for Stafford was aware last session, that it was in the contemplation of government to repeal the duties on foreign iron, at a time when the deficiency of the supply to meet the growing demand was not felt. With respect to the other metals, undoubtedly the high price at which they were supplied was a great impediment to the growth of our manufactures, and the continuance of that high price would certainly endanger our commercial prosperity, in respect to those branches of our manufactures. It was his intention, therefore, to propose, a reduction of the present duties on copper, and other metals, which were employed in our manufactures. He trusted, that on communicating with those who were interested in copper and other mines, he should find them equally disposed to accommodate their views to the great interests of the country, with those who were connected in the iron trade.
Mr. Tremaynehad no wish whatever to oppose principles of free trade. At the same time, he hoped his majesty's government would proceed with caution. A large capital had been embarked in copper-mines, on the faith of a continuance of the existing system. All sudden revulsions were to be dreaded, and a great influx of foreign copper might produce the most mischievous effects.
Sir R. Vivianhoped his majesty's government would not proceed too precipitately in a measure of so much importance to the commercial interests of the country.
Mr. Grenfellsaid, that no views of private interest should induce him to withhold his assent from the liberal principles on which his majesty's government had lately acted. He trusted, however, that they would proceed with caution.
Mr. Maberlyhoped that a measure of so much importance would be preceded by inquiry and investigation.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ARMY EXTRAORDINARIES—CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—LORD CHARLES SOMERSET.
The House resolved itself into a committee of Supply. On the resolution, "That 620,000 l. be granted to defray the Extraordinary Expenses of the Army,"
Mr. Humebegged to know in what manner a former grant of a similar kind, in respect of the military establishment at the Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, & c. had been applied.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, that the commissioners, who were pursuing their inquiries in the colonies, had taken occasion, in their report to government, to express their entire satisfaction at the manner in which the grant in question had been disposed of.
Mr. Humefelt the more anxious for explicit information on this head, because there was no British colony which had so much reason to complain of its govemor, as the Cape of Good Hope; none in which the settlers had been more oppressively or unjustly treated; and no governor whose arbitrary and highly improper conduct was more to be reprobated than lord Charles Somerset [hear]. If the statements that had been published respecting the course adopted by that individual —(and he had seen a great many such statements)— were true, lord Charles Somerset ought not to be continued any longer in his government. His conduct seemed to have been not only most arbitrary to the colonists, but most hostile to the liberty of the press. It was to be hoped, therefore, that the report of the commissioners would be immediately communicated.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonassured the hon. gentleman, that the commissioners were as actively engaged in the prosecution of their important inquiries, as men could be. When ever their report should be received, there would be, on the part of the colonial department every disposition to meet the object adverted to. But, if the hon. gentleman expected that all the statements which had met the public eye respecting the individual in question, and recent transactions at the Cape, necessarily exparte as those statements must be, were to receive an answer from him, the hon. gentleman's expectations would be disappointed. That hon. member on a former night had said, that all the complaints which had been preferred by the settlers at the Cape to the Colonial-office were received with indifference and contempt

999
—that all their applications were unattended to. Now, this imputation he denied in the strongest manner; and he challenged the hon. gentleman to adduce a single instance, in which such complaints had not been made the object of careful examination by the Colonial-office.
Mr. Humedesired to repeat his conviction, that the conduct of lord Charles Somerset had been so very reprehensible —so entirely contrary to the interests of the settlers, and the welfare of the colony at the Cape—that the colonial department ought by no means to have continued him in his government up to this time. He knew, indeed, that some of the individuals aggrieved had received a partial remuneration for the ill treatment which they had been subjected to. The editor of a journal published at the Cape had been allowed to return; but had been refused any remuneration for the losses he had suffered; and he must say that in continuing lord Charles Somerset in such a situation, the colonial department had manifested very little regard for the interests or the feelings of the colonists.
Mr. Wilmot-Hortonsaid, that when the report should have been communicated to parliament, the colonial department would be in a condition to meet any specific charge which the hon. gentleman might bring forward.
The resolution was agreed to.

MUTINY BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Sykesrose to repeat his objections to the practice of flogging, so prevalent in our military service, and which was comparatively unknown in the armies of foreign nations. It had been argued, that the practice was necessary in the British service, because our army was recruited from the manufacturing districts, in which the habits of our people were immoral and irregular; but, for his part, he did not see that persons brought from those districts were more untractable than the average of the population. He would read a letter from a correspondent who stated, that he had met a soldier whom a guard was conducting to the hospital from his wounds in consequence of his having just received 300 lashes. He had heard the screams of another victim, who was also receiving 300 lashes, and of a third who had received a similar punishment. The writer also alluded to a soldier who had died of the
1000
punishment he had received. It was at least the duty of the House to see that this practice was not carried to so great an extent.
Colonel Johnstoneobjected to the inequality of the present principle in its application. There were regiments in which 100 lashes were more than equal to 300 lashes as given in other regiments for similar offences.
Lord Palmerstonwas not an advocate for corporal punishment, but was convinced that, to a certain degree, it was absolutely indispensable. Our army was recruited not by proscription, but by volunteers, which might account for the circumstance that the discipline of the French army was not so complete, and their punishment not so severe as ours. Every effort, consistent with the discipline of our forces, had been made, to decrease the amount of corporal punishment.
Mr. Humestated, that corporal punishment was unknown in the French army, and yet their discipline was so excellent that the duke of Wellington had held it up as an example to our own troops.
General Hopestated, that the necessity of corporal punishment arose in a great measure from the practice in our army of drunkenness; but from the regulation adopted by the commander-in-chief, of paying men weekly, this source of offence would be greatly removed.
Captain Maberlysuggested the introduction of the tread-mill as a substitute for corporal punishment.
Mr. Hudson Gurneythought this a fit opportunity of adverting to the practice of enlisting soldiers for life in the British army, whilst, in every other service, they were enlisted for a term of years. The arrangements of our army seemed to be harsh and unjust, in the same ratio that our civil institutions were otherwise. He thought this a grievous and crying evil; and one to which the House ought to give its immediate attention.
Lord Miltonsaid, he should not enter into the details which had been adverted to by the hon. member for Hull, or the last hon. member, but would once more protest against that which appeared to him to be the most objectionable of all; namely, the immense increase which it was this year proposed to make in our standing army. That increase had been hitherto wholly unaccounted for; the ground taken by the gallant member' for Southwark not being at all satisfactory,

1001
and, as far as he could judge from our relations abroad or our situation at home, wholly uncalled for. He was unable to see any danger in any quarter which could call for such an increase. With respect to what had been said as to the enlistment of soldiers for life, the hon. member for Newport was not probably in parliament when, nineteen years ago, that measure was moved in that House. He knew the quarter from which that measure then originated, and he would venture to say, that it was from the same quarter that the present increase proceeded—not from the administration generally, or the financial part of it, but solely from the military part of it. He was almost tempted to lament the present prosperity of the country, when he witnessed the purposes to which that prosperity was prostituted. He was quite sure that if the country gentlemen felt the same pressure of distress that they did some years ago, they would never consent to this military increase. From some cause or another, there had been always shown a strong disposition to increase the military force. Was it forgotten with what reluctance ministers consented to reduce the army to 60,000 men? Since then, half that number had been added, although no cause, either at home or abroad, had been referred to, to warrant it. In 1819, upon frivolous pretexts, the army was again increased; and now advantage was taken of the first moment of returning prosperity, to carry through the favourite project of an increase in the military. Surely ministers ought at least to give the country a moment to breathe after all its struggles. He did not object to the chancellor of the Exchequers system, because eventually the changes in the duties on wines, & c. would increase the revenue; but his reductions of the taxes were not such as would materially relieve the burthens of the people. Nor did he expect that the chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to relieve those burthens so long as these consecutive measures for the increase of the army were forced upon him.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercomplained that the noble lord had made an allusion to some one as the secret author of the present propositions relative to the amount of the standing army; but he felt it incumbent upon him to say, that a more complete error had never been promulgated in that House. If any blame was to be attributed to the administration for
1002
the amount of that army, he was bound to avow himself as culpable as any one. The present military establishment was designed, not as substitute for the ancient mode of governing the people, but solely with a view to guard the empire against accidents, with respect to its foreign possessions.
Mr. Robertsondenied that any reason was to be found, either in the arguments of ministers or the state of Europe, to warrant any augmentation of the army.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
Mr. R. Martin Mr. R. Martin moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Heathcolesaid, he felt bound to oppose the bill. He had listened to the statements of the hon. mover upon former occasions, but he confessed he had heard nothing which, in his view of the subject, called for the enactment of such a measure. The hon. mover had, on a former evening, detailed to the House, in a most affecting manner, the many injuries inflicted on the bear, which had been for so long a time baited at the Westminster pit. Now, he had been induced, by curiosity, to pay a visit to this bear, and he declared that a finer animal of the kind, or a more prosperous and hopeful set of cubs, he had never seen. The fact was, that this bear had been continually baited for six years; and they had been at last obliged to discontinue baiting him, because he had grown too fat for the exercise. The hon. member had also indulged the House with a history of the cruelties practised upon a greyhound by a French surgeon; that statement, however had since been contradicted in the public journals. If such a bill as this was to to pass, they were also bound to prevent the cruelties practised in coursing, hunting, shooting, and fishing. He would ask any hon. member—and he should like to hear the casuistry by which the question would be evaded—whether there was any more cruelty in baiting a bear with one or two dogs, than there was in hunting a stag with ten or twenty couple of hounds. If parliament put down bear-baiting, dog-fighting, and such sports, and allowed stag-hunting and other rural amusements to be continued, then might it indeed be said, that they had one law for the poor and another for the rich. It was known that his majesty himself kept stag hounds, and encouraged an indulgence in that sport. Many hon. members then in his

1003
eye also had packs of stag-hounds and fox-hounds, and were therefore, upon the principle of the hon. member for Galway, as much liable to a charge of cruelty as the proprietor of the Westminster pit in Duck-lane. He hoped the House would not interfere to the prevention of those hardy sports of the field, in which English gentlemen indulged, but which, in fairness, must be suppressed, in the event of the hon. member's bill passing into a law. He would move, as an amendment, "That it be read a second time on that day six months."
Mr. Carus Wilsonsupported the bill, and said a few words against the practice of cock-fighting.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he felt bound to oppose the second reading of this bill. His hon. friend—to whose kindness of intention no man was more ready to bear testimony than himself-—seemed to have adopted the motto—"nihil humani a me alienum puto." But, if the hon. member wished to prevent all cruelty to animals, let him bring in a bill to prevent field sports of every description, and he could at once understand it; but he confessed that he did not see upon what ground monkeys, and badgers, and bears were entitled to a distinct and separate legislative enactment for their protection. Let them for a moment compare bear-bailing with stag-hunting, and they would find that the former animal had a considerable advantage, because he was allowed the use of his natural powers, and was only attacked by one or two dogs whereas, before a stag-hunt took place, they deprived the animal of his horns, which were, in fact, his only effectual means of resistance, against the twenty or thirty couple of dogs by which he was pursued; inconsequence of which the poor animal must be worried to death, unless the huntsmen happened to be in time to save him by calling off the dogs. He would ask his hon. friend, whether there was any thing more cruel in dog or cock-fighting than in pigeon-shooting? A gentleman made a wager of 200 sovereigns with his particular friend, that he would kill the greatest number of pigeons in a given number of shots; and pigeons were accordingly provided and shot at with a double-barrelled gun, without mercy. Was not this as cruel as any treatment to which a monkey or a dog was exposed; and yet how was the cruelty to be remedied? If, then, they could not provide against that which
1004
might be called cruelty, in every case, why were they to interpose legislative enactments for the protection of a certain privileged class of animals? Why were the monkey and the bear to be protected, while the fox, and the stag, and the hare, were subject to the most unrelenting persecution? His hon. friend's bill stated: "And be it further enacted, that if any person shall, after the be concerned or engaged in, or shall promote or encourage, or any wise promote or encourage, or aid or assist in promoting or encouraging, any bear-baiting, dog-fighting, monkey and dog-fighting, or badger and dog-fighting, or cock-throwing or cock-fighting, or shall in any manner wantonly and cruelly beat, abuse or ill-treat any of the above-mentioned animals, or any domesticated animal, it shall be lawful for any person who shall witness such offence, to apprehend such person so offending, and to convey such offender before any justice of the peace or other magistrate within whose jurisdiction such offence shall be committed," & c. This clause, if carried into a law, would open a door to the practice of a wanton and oppressive tyranny; for nothing more was required than the information of any evil or designing person, to cause the conviction of any person who might be accused. But, there was another clause which was still more oppressive. It was this. "And be it further enacted, that if any justice of the peace, or other magistrate, shall witness such offence as aforesaid within his jurisdiction, it shall be lawful for him, on his view, to commit and punish the party or parties so offending, in such a manner as he might do under this act upon information and proof made before him of such offence." Here was the establishment of a severe and most oppressive tyranny. By this bill, a magistrate would have the liberty of the poor man at his disposal. For any gentleman in the commission, perhaps, after having dined upon crimped cod, and after having devoted the whole of his day to fox-hunting, aye, and when about to sleep upon feathers plucked from a goose when still alive, might turn round upon any unfortunate individual who thought proper to amuse himself in his more humble way, and at once punish him, without hearing any evidence or allowing any appeal. In his kindness to brutes, he would entreat the hon. member not to forget that part of the animal creation to which he himself belonged. With respect

1005
to Dr. Magendie, a gentleman of great professional skill, and to whom the hon. member had called the attention of the House on a former night, he must observe, that that statement had received a full refutation. But, supposing it otherwise, they all knew that the advancement of science required such experiments, and he would ask, would his hon. friend take into custody, and fine or imprison, the men by whom they were made? If the statement of the hon. member respecting Dr. Magendie were correct, he would not put himself forward as the defender of that gentleman; but, on the other hand, he should pause before he attempted to stop such experiments, by unnecessary acts of legislation. Such enactments ought, at all times to be viewed with suspicion; because the principle upon which they were founded was a most dangerous one. He opposed this bill, because he thought it unnecessary—he opposed it, because he thought it would have the effect of creating a privileged class of animals—he opposed it, because it went to debar the lower classes of society from those amusements, which persons of rank and station were to continue in the enjoyment of. If the hon. member wished to repress all cruelty to animals, then let him include in his bill, hunting, shooting, and fishing, and he should at once understand what he was at. In 1822, he the hon. member introduced and passed a bill to prohibit cruelty to animals. This year he came down with a fresh bill; and, if he succeeded in that, he would come next year, and say, "I find that there are still some animals unprotected, and as you have already given your sanction to two bills, and thereby acknowledged the justice of the principle upon which I go, you are bound to give me your support." He called upon the House not to allow themselves to legislate upon such subjects. The evils complained of would be done away with, by the growing intelligence and refinement of the country.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, he had hitherto confined himself to silent votes in support of this question, but he felt that upon this occasion, he should act an unmanly part, if he shrunk from his share of the misplaced censure with which the supporters of the bill had been met. It appeared to be the argument of the hon. and right hon. members who opposed this bill, that because it would not have the effect of protecting all animals from
1006
cruelty, it ought not to protect any, and that all ought to be left to the humanity of individuals. This was not, however, the light in which the bill ought to be viewed. The question was, whether that House was called upon to interfere for the prevention of gross and wanton cruelty? There was not in that House, any member more opposed to petty and trivial legislation than he was; but he felt that the former bill introduced by the hon. member, was not deserving of such a character; on the contrary, he felt that it had been productive of great diminution of cruelty to animals. The enactment of such measures would sink deeper and deeper into the minds of the people, and would, in the course of time, when aided by the diffusion of education and enlightened principles, be productive of the most beneficial effects upon that particular class of society whose habits of unnecessary cruelty the present bill was intended to repress. There were certainly some evil habits which it was found worse than useless to attempt to repress by penal enactments. He would instance gaming, which had gone on and flourished, notwithstanding all that had been done to repress it within the last three centuries. The measures used to repress it had, in fact, only given an advantage to the dishonest and desperate character, by encouraging dishonesty and fraud. As the laws had been found inoperative, so were the punishments inflicted in opposition to every principle of justice. Of what avail was it to fine the keeper of a gaming table 5,000 l., or send him to the treadmill, while the men who gamed at the house were publicly known, and allowed to go at large? He would vote for the second reading of this bill, because he felt it called for; any defects contained in it might be rectified in the committee. — He admitted, that much evil might be done by the prejudices of certain classes, and the readiness of public writers to pander to those prejudices. Anatomy, which was the basis of sound medical knowledge, was suffering from them. It would very soon be out of the power of the English student to finish his education at home. He must seek in the schools abroad for those accommodations to his studies which hitherto had attracted foreigners to our shores. What would the great practitioners in physiological science have done, had they been impeded in their examinations as the practitioners of the present

1007
day were likely, by the growth of those prejudices, to be impeded? The immortal Harvey could not have made his luminous discovery upon the circulation of the blood without the aid of practical anatomy. No man would accuse him of encouraging cruelty to animals; but still he would say, that, of all the acts of authority which man exercised over the inferior order of animals, none was more excusable, for none was fraught with greater benefit, than the performance of those scientific experiments, the object of which was, to mitigate suffering, to remove disease, to establish health, and to prolong life. He would not shrink from any obloquy which might attach to his support of experiments, by which science was improved, and the sum of human misery was lessened. The process which led to this perfection in science was harsh, but the results were beneficent.—He would say one word, with respect to the learned and highly distinguished physiologist, Dr. Magendie, with whom he had the honour to be acquainted. He was no judge of the importance of Dr. Magendie's discoveries, but the concurrent voice of all those who were judges of these matters was loud in his praise. He believed that the hon. member for Galway had noticed the most aggravated parts of those experiments; but he must be permitted to observe, that none of these experiments, however cautiously and humanely performed, would bear discussion. When he was residing at Paris, he was introduced to Dr. Magendie, by their mutual friend, baron Humboldt, and, being in a state of ill-health, was attended by him, as his physician. It had been his misfortune to have suffered much from illness; but he always felt, as a considerable alleviation of that misfortune, the genuine sympathy, the true kindness, the unaffected tenderness, which he had constantly experienced from the able and intelligent medical practitioners whose advice he had sought. But he was bound in justice to say, and he should be base and ungrateful if he did not state the fact, that he never had been treated, amongst medical men, with greater care and tenderness than he had received from Dr. Magendie. He had no doubt, therefore, that if that gentleman had inflicted pain on any animal, it must have been when in the ardent pursuit of science, and with the hope, if not the conviction, that his experiments would be generally beneficial. He most fully agreed with sir
1008
Everard Home and Mr. Abernethy, that the experiments on living animals were only to be tolerated on the ground of absolute necessity, and that all that were not induced by that cause, ought strongly to be condemned. However, he did not think that such a subject could properly be made the ground of legislative enactments, but must be left to the humanity and feeling of the men of science engaged in performing the experiments. To the prosecution of these, this bill offered no obstacles, being only intended to prevent wanton cruelty, and he should, therefore, give it his cordial support.
Mr. George Lambsaid, that, though no friend of bull-baiting, he still felt inclined to oppose the second reading of this bill. The bill formerly introduced by the hon. member for Galway had a specific object, which daily experience proved to be necessary; namely, that of compelling drovers, carmen, and coachmen, to abstain from wantonly and cruelly tormenting the animals committed to their care. This bill had no such recommendation. He agreed with the right hon. Secretary, that the moment the legislature attempted to interfere with the sports of the people, they must do it upon grounds equally applicable to the rich and the poor. His learned friend had spoken of the games at which this bill was levelled, as not being the sports of this country; but he could show that they had been patronized by the great and powerful, centuries ago. Evelyn, describing a bull-bait that occurred in the time of Charles 2nd., stated, that "One of the dogs was thrown so high, that he fell into the lap of a lady of rank in the second gallery. Two dogs were killed. The sports ended with the ape on horseback; and I retired wearied with the filthy scene, which I had not witnessed for many years." That might be called gross, though, from the account given, the sport seemed to have been much admired by the court at the time. But that was not all, for, in the year 1702, under the gracious reign of a female, another specimen of that sport had been exhibited. He would read to the House a paper which he had found among the papers of a Vice-Chamberlain of queen Anne, Why or how it came there he could not tell. Whether the sports of the day, especially of the bull and bear baiting kind, were under the special control of the chamberlain, was a point which he would not now discuss, but simply content himself with reading the paper.

1009
It was decorated with the royal arms, and after being dated as from "the Bear Garden at Hockley in the Hole, nigh unto Clerkenwell Green;" it went on, "This is to give notice to all gentlemen and lovers of game, that on the 17th day of this present month of April, 1702, the following sports will be exhibited at this place:—first, a battle between two dogs, at one guinea each, one from a part of Middlesex, and the other from Cow-cross. The dog that shows the finest and fullest game, and comes the cleanest into hand afterwards, wins all. After that there will be a mad bull let loose with fire-works all over him, and two or three cats tied to his tail: also other varieties of bull-baiting and bear-baiting, beginning at two o'clock in the afternoon.—Vivat Regina" [a laugh.] He did not quote these instances in approbation of such proceedings, but merely to show that they had been encouraged as national sports. He conceived they ought not to legislate on this subject. It was interfering, unnecessarily with that, the cure of which should be left to that great corrective—education. For his own part, while there were persons who liked to be amused in this way, he would rather see them so amused, than not amused at all.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, he differed entirely from the opinion of his hon. friend. If there were any persons who could be amused by such exhibitions as were described in the paper which his hon. friend had read, he trusted they would never be amused while they were in existence. Much good had been done by the exertions of his hon. friend the member for Galway, as might be seen in every market in London; and he hoped he would persevere in his humane efforts. The bill had been opposed, because it was said to interfere with the sports of the poor alone, and had been spoken of as an innovation. Now, the interfering with the sports of the poor, and leaving those of the rich untouched, was no innovation, for the legislature had, in one instance at least, suffered the rich to have their dances when and where they pleased, while at the same time, they had expressly forbidden the poor the enjoyment of a similar privilege. No one could doubt the effect produced by these sports on the morals of the people. The bull-fights in Spain were the subject of comment of every Englishman who had visited that country; and yet these same - persons, though they
1010
could see the bad effects produced by the bull-fights in that country, could never be led to consider the evils resulting from the bull-baitings allowed in their own. He had no doubt, that in Spain such exhibitions, had been productive of the most mischievous effects; that the people accustomed to seethe wanton shedding of the blood of animals in their theatre, had thus been prepared to witness the shedding of human blood at the auto da fé-Such a supposition was by no means improbable—it was not taking a greater step than that exhibited by the inimitable Hogarth in his celebrated "Progress of Cruelty," where a wretch began his career, by pinning a cockchafer, and concluded it by the murder of the unhappy woman he had seduced.
Mr. R. Martinreplied. He said, he thought it was no answer to him to say that he had not gone far enough, and that he ought to have legislated to put an end to the sports of the field. Such an argument, instead of being applied to him by the Home Secretary, was peculiarly calculated to be addressed to that right hon. gentleman himself. If stag-hunting was as that right hon. gentleman had described it, then was there a sufficient justification for him to call on that right hon. gentleman to exercise his influence in the government to put an end to such a barbarous sport. And he did, therefore, call on the Home Secretary to do so, and to begin the salutary reformation by recommending to the king, whose adviser he was, to put down the royal hunt, and dimiss the royal stag-hounds. If that event took place, no one could doubt that it would produce a most beneficial effect on the morals of the people; as it might lead to the putting down of other stag hunts which annually took place in the neighbourhood of London. The argument, that he had not by this bill done all that ought to be done, was no answer to his claim to do as much as was possible at this moment, any more than telling a man who attempted to save one hundred out of eight hundred persons of board a sinking ship, that he could not preserve all, would be a sufficient reason to induce him to abstain from attempting to rescue any of the 800 from a watery grave. He considered that the places of amusements in London where these cruelties were exhibited, formed a nucleus for the greatest villains in the world. Had the gentleman who opposed this measure asked the open-

1011
ions of the aldermen of London, the magistrates of Middlesex, or of any other magistrates? He would himself answer that question in the negative; for he knew that nearly all the magistrates in the country were in his favour. It had been said, that the House, by passing this bill, would be legislating on the people, and on their sports. If that were so, he was against the sports of the people; but it was a consolation, that if they were legislating against the sports of the people, they were legislating with the people on their side; and, on behalf of the unvitiated population of England, he claimed the enactment of the law. The House had received petitions from all parts of the country in favour of the proposed measure. Indeed, no man could properly vote against this bill, unless he would go the length of saying, that no cruelty exercised on animals ought to be the subject of legislation. One word as to professor Magendie. He did think the experiments of that professor most horrid and most wanton. He did not mean to say that experiments ought not to be permitted where they were for the discovery of any latent point of science, that would materially benefit man by being discovered. In such a case he thought they ought to be permitted; but with respect to those which he had stated to have been performed by Dr. Magendie, he did not mean to declare, that they could load to no practical benefit; that they had been performed by the doctor a thousand times, before in Paris; and that they were only exhibited here to produce a dramatic effect. Against the supposed propriety of such exhibitions he had produced the testimony of the first physician and the first surgeon in this Country; and to their opinion he could now add that of the regius professor of anatomy in the university of Oxford, who thought it was doing good to the country to call the attention of the public to these matters. Indeed, he should be content to be called a wicked maligner of character, if he could not produce from the -Works of professor Magendie himself a Strong condemnation of that conduct which the professor had lately pursued here. The circumstances which he had related of the professor were substantially true. It made little difference as to the real question, whether the experiment had been performed of a spanial or a greyhound, for in one case the professor had selected a spaniel, whose organs of smelling were
1012
so much finer than that of other dogs, for the purpose of making his experiments on the nerves, by which he could entirely destroy the sense of smelling even in that animal. He knew that what was spoken in that House was privileged from the action of libel; but he desired, in order to try the real merits of the question, that such an action might be brought, and with the view of enabling professor Magendie to commence the action, and to obtain evidence to support it, he had gone down that day to St. Bartholomew's hospital, and had there repeated the statement, as nearly as possible in the terms in which he had before made it in that House. But what signified it whether the dog was a spaniel or a grey hound. The distinction reminded him of a scene to which he was witness within the walls of Newgate. A man who had been condemned for murder protested to the ordinary that he was guiltless of the crime laid to his charge, and that to execute him for it would be an act of murder. The ordinary said —"You have been found guilty on the evidence of many witnesses of beating out the brains of your wife." "True" replied the prisoner, "but I was charged with having beaten out her brains with a mallet, whereas I only beat them out with the pole-axe. I am therefore a murdered man." Just of the same nature was the distinction taken between a spaniel and a greyhound, in reference to the present argument. He knew for a fact, that Dr. Magendie, while performing one of those barbarous operations on a dog in England, placed his mouth close to the car of the suffering animal, and said, patting it with his hand, "restez tranquille;" then turning to the spectators, he added, "Il serait plus tranquille s il entendait Francais." But it was unnecessary to trouble the House with the mention of any further cases. He would, therefore, leave the question to rest upon its own merits, having answered the objections which had been urged against it.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, that the bill formerly introduced by the hon. member was directed against wanton acts of cruelty; but the present was directed against cruelty which was only incidental to amusements. He could not, therefore, give it his support.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that, as every body agreed that a beneficial result had ensued from the former bill which the hon. member had introduced, be thought it should

1013
naturally lead to the conclusion, that they could not do harm in going a little further with him. It was not, he thought, fair to draw any comparison between field sports and those sports (if they could be so called) which the hon, member desired to put down. The former were conducive to health and activity—every Faculty of the body was called into action in their pursuit; but the latter were mere spectacles of unmixed barbarity — animals being set to tear each other to pieces, for the gratification of a multitude who stood passively looking on. It appeared to him very strange that in the course of the discussion the most, important part of the subject had been overlooked—he meant the injurious effect which such scenes bad on the morals of society. Putting ail other considerations out of view—considering that he was not legislating on a principle of humanity towards brutes, but for men—he could not avoid giving his support to the bill. The persons who joined in the sports which would be affected by it, were the very nuisance of society. The neighbourhood where the sports were pursued was the worst in the metropolis. The common law of England justified the principle of interfering with regard to any thing which had a tendency to injure the morals of the community, and cruelties were in principle punishable by common law at the present moment. The object of the bill was merely to carry that principle into effect, in those atrocious cases which shocked the public morals. He did not think that the powers of the bill would be abused. On the contrary, he feared that they would fall into disuse, unless the hon. member for Galway could appoint a successor as industrious and persevering as himself, to see its enactments carried into effect. For these reasons the bill should receive his cordial Support.
Mr. F. Buxtonsupported the bill.
Sir M. W. Ridleyopposed the bill, because he could not consent to sanction the preamble, in which it was asserted, that it was necessary to put down these sports.
Sir T. Aclandconsidered these sports calculated to form such heartless, coldblooded characters, as had assembled in Cato-street.
The House divided: For the second reading 32; For the amendment 50; Majority 18. The bill was consequently lost.