 | ||
| ||
| ||
|
Animal Rights Quotes • Law • Humane Education • Historical Literature eBook Library: Free Full-Text eBooks • Primary Sources | ||
| ||
| ||
| | |
|
Animal Rights History Timeline » [1785-1837] Romantic Age » Animal Rights Law | |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||||||||
| | |  | |  | | | |
Bull-Baiting Bill, 1800-Apr-18Parliamentary History
Debate in the Commons on the Bill to prevent Bull-Baiting.] April 18. On the order of the day for taking the report into consideration, Mr. Windham said:—Sir, I rise for the purpose of opposing the motion which has been made by the Hon. baronet; and had I been present when this bill was in its former stages, I should have even then decidedly opposed it; for notwithstanding the gravity with which it was introduced, and the importance which seemed to be attached to it, I should certainly have thought it my duty to ask the House if they knew upon what it was they were going to legislate. Let me now ask then what there is in bull-baiting which they have suddenly found to be so alarming. It is no new practice; it has existed more than a thousand years, without having been supposed to be pregnant with any of those crying evils that are now ascribed to it. It is pretended that it "has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished?" I, for one, cannot think that it has increased, nor can I see any necessity whatsoever for the interference of the legislature in order to diminish it. In my whole life, indeed, I have never been present but at two bull-baitings, and they happened while I was a school-boy; but I cannot say that I experienced any bad effects from the gratification of my curiosity. I did not find myself the worse for it, nor could I suspect that the other spectators were contaminated by the spectacle. Sir, there are some persons to whom a legislative measure like this may appear serious and important; but for my own part, I cannot but look upon it as proceeding from a busy and anxious disposition to legislate on matters in which the laws are already sufficient to prevent abuse:—it at best only argues a pruritus leges ferendi, in the gratifying or opposing of which I cannot but think my time, and more especially that of the House, is most miserably employed. This House ought only to legislate when an act of legislature is gravely and generally called for; and not merely to gratify petty, personal, and local motives, such as are infinitely beneath the deliberate dignity of parliament; especially in times like the present, when questions of vital importance are hourly pressing on our attention. Really, Sir, in turning from the great interests of this country and of Europe, to discuss with equal solemnity such measures as that which is now before us, the House appears to me to resemble Mr. Smirk, the auctioneer in the play, who could hold forth just as eloquently upon a ribbon as upon a Raphael. This petty, meddling, legislative spirit, cannot be productive of good : it serves only to multiply the laws, which are already too numerous, and to furnish mankind with additional means of vexing and harassing one another. A great deal has lately been raid respecting the state of the poor, and the hardships which they are suffering. But if they are really in the condition which is described, why should we set about to deprive them of the few enjoyments which are left to them? If we look back to the state of the common people in those countries with which our youthful studies make us acquainted, we find, that what with games, shows, festivals, and the institutions of their religion, their sources of amusement and relaxation were so numerous as to make them appear to have enjoyed a perpetual holiday. If we look to Catholic countries, it will also appear, partly, perhaps, from many festivals and ceremonies being adopted into their religion from the Pagan system, and afterwards so transformed as to incorporate with it, that they all enjoy many more amusements and a much longer time for relaxation than the poor in this country, who may say with justice, "Why interfere with the few sports that we have, while you leave to yourselves and the rich so great a variety? You have your carriages, your town-houses, and your country-houses; your balls, your plays, your operas, your masquerades, your card-parties, your books, your dogs, and your horses to amuse you—On yourselves you lay no restraint—But from us you wish to take the little we have?" In the south of France and in Spain, at the end of the day's labour, and in the cool of the evening's shade, the poor dance in mirthful festivity on the green, to the sound of the guitar. But in this country no such source of amusement presents itself. If they dance, it must be often in a marsh, or in the rain, for the pleasure of catching cold. But there is a substitute in this country, well known by the name of a Hop. We all know the alarm which the very word inspires, and the sound of the fiddle calls forth the magistrate to dissolve the meeting. Men bred in ignorance of the world, and having no opportunity of mixing in its scenes or observing its manners, may be much worse employed than in learning something of its customs from theatrical representations; but if a company of strolling players make their appearance in a village, they are hunted immediately from it as a nuisance, except, perhaps, there be a few people of greater wealth in the neighbourhood, whose wives and daughters patronize them. Then the labouring people must have recourse to the public-house, where, perhaps, they get into conversation, and politics become the subject. That this is an employment sufficiently mischievous I am willing enough to admit. What are they to do then? Go home and read their Bibles ! This is, no doubt, very proper; but it would be well if the rich set them a little better example in this way. Whatever may be the habits of the more luxurious climates of the continent, the amusements of our people were always composed of athletic, manly, and hardy exercises, affording trials of their courage, conducive to their health, and to them objects of ambition and of glory. In the exercise of those sports they may, indeed, some- times hurt themselves, but could never hurt the nation. If a set of poor men, for vigorous recreation, prefer a game of cudgels, instead of interrupting them, it should be more our business to let them have fair play; for victory is here to them an object of as much glory as greater men could aim at in a superior sphere. These sports are, in my mind, as fair an object of emulation and of fame, as those in which the higher classes are so proud to indulge; and here I am ready to agree with the poet, that, in other circumstances, Sir, having premised thus much, I next come to consider this case of bull-baiting in particular. The sport here, it must be confessed, is at the expense of an animal which is not by any means a party to the amusement; but it at the same time serves to cultivate the qualities of a certain species of dogs, which affords as much pleasure to their owners as greyhounds do to others; and why should the butcher be deprived of his amusement any more than the gentleman? That peculiar breed of dogs, though now decreasing, and nearly extinct, has always been held in high estimation in this island, Gratian, who wrote as early as the age of Augustus, mentioned and described this animal, which, indeed, has always been so much a favourite, that many of oar ships are called after its name. It is no small recommendation to bull-dogs, that they are so much in repute with the populace. The advocates of this bill, Sir, proposed to abolish bull-baiting on the score of cruelty. It is strange enough that such an argument should be employed by a set of persons who have a most vexatious code of laws for the protection of their own amusements. I do not mean at present to condemn the game laws; but when gentlemen talk of cruelty, I must remind them, that it belongs as much to shooting, as to the sport of bull-baiting; nay more so, as it frequently happens, that where one bird is shot, a great many others go off much wounded. When, therefore, I hear humane gentlemen even make a boast of having wounded a number of birds in this way, it only affords me a further proof that savage sports do not make savage people. Has not the butcher as much right to demand the exercise of his sport, as the man of fortune to demand that of hunting? is not the latter as painful to the horse, as the former to the bull ! And do not gentlemen, for the empty fame of being in at the death, frequently goad and spur their horses to exertions greatly beyond their strength? Might not the butcher say, "I have no coaches, horses, balls, masquerades, nor even books, which afford so much delight to those in higher stations, and who have more leisure time; do not therefore deprive me of the amusement I feel in setting the propensities of one animal against those of another." The common people may ask with justice, why abolish bull-baiting, and protect hunting and shooting? What appearance must we make, if we, who have every source of amusement open to us, and yet follow these cruel sports, become rigid censors of the sports of the poor, and abolish them on account of their cruelty, when they are not more cruel than our own? It may be said, that in bull-baiting the labouring poor throw away their money, and lose their time, which they ought to devote to labour, and that thus they themselves may become chargeable to the rich. But surely, if there be any set of men who ought to be left at liberty to dispose of their money as they choose, it ought to be the industrious labourers; and such men do not lose time by their amusements, but work harder and longer at other times, to make up for what time they may lose in relaxation, and to furnish them with additional money for the enjoyment of such recreations. I do not mean to speak against magistrates; on the contrary I am convinced of the value and importance of the services they render to the community, and of the general activity and propriety with which they discharge their duty: but I do think that many of them appear to act upon an opinion, that it is their duty at all times to control the common people in their amusements, like some to whom the care of children is committed, who think it right to deny them every thing which they seem eager to have or enjoy. They appear to act on the opinion, that the common people have nothing to do with any amusement; but ought only to eat, to sleep, and to work. Upon the whole, Sir, there does not appear to me to be any real evil in the practice of bull-baiting; that it would be trifling to legislate upon such petty concerns, and that it is in the present case absurd, as the practice is already so much fallen into disuse, that it seems as if the bill had been brought in now lest it should be quite abolished before it could be passed. As to the cruelty of the practice, it is mere solemn mockery in gentlemen to talk of it, while they themselves indulge in sports equally cruel. In a bull-baiting, a hedge may be broken down, a field of grass trodden down; but what is this compared to the injury done by a pack of hounds, followed by horses and their riders, sweeping over fields and hedges without distinction? Accident to the lookers-on do sometimes happen at bull-baiting; but I am sure that I have known more fatal accidents than ever happened from bull-baiting, arise in the county of Norfolk alone (keeping out of the question those which have happened merely from the danger always attending the use of fire arms), by quarrels between the game-invaders and the game-preservers, some being killed on the spot, and others hanged afterwards for the murders. What then is the plea by which the bill is supported? It cannot be from sensibility and hatred of cruelty in those very gentlemen who in the game-season, as has been justly said, become their own butchers and poulterers. Sir, I shall conclude with moving, "That the said Report be taken into further consideration upon this day six months." Sir W. Pulteney said, that the right hon, gentleman had displayed great ability and ingenuity in the speech he had made. His first argument was, that passing the bill was encouraging a spirit of petty legislation; but the legislature had often interfered on subjects equally trifling. The right hon. gentleman had alluded to the importance of keeping up this breed of dogs, and to the warlike spirit which this practice infused into the people. But if bull-baiting was so very important, and if it was declining and getting so much into disuse, why not propose to grant a bounty for its encouragement? But though it was so much neglected now, it was rather against part of the right hon. gentleman's argument, that the warlike spirit of the nation had not at all declined. Had not as great courage been displayed in the course of the present war, by our soldiers and sailors, as at any former period? There were many counties where bull-baiting was never practised. In Yorkshire, Northumberland, and all the northern counties, it was unknown, and the inhabitants were as brave as any other counties in the kingdom. But there were many places where this practice was far from declining. In Stanfordshire and Rutlandshire, the labouring poor often left their work to attend on this sport for days and even weeks together, and thus consumed the money which ought to go to the support of their families. As to the cruelty of the practice, it was indisputable. There was a great difference between it and hunting or shooting. In this case a poor animal was tied to a stake, with no means of defence or escape, and tormented and tortured for a whole day, or even for several succeeding days. In the other sports, there was no such refinement of torture. He thought it was a dangerous thing to impress the minds of the poor with a persuasion of the hardships of the laws under which they lived. The case was a simple one; it was merely determining whether it was right to put a stop to a cruel, brutal, and inhuman practice, which was degrading to the people by whom it was encouraged, and debasing to the human mind. Mr. Canning said, that the hon. baronet had turned the tables rather unfairly upon his right hon. friend; and as it was inconsistent with the forms of the House for a member to speak twice during the same debate, he rose to explain and justify the arguments which his right hon. friend had adduced. The worthy baronet had seemed to think it absurd to dwell so long upon such a trifling subject; but he ought to have considered, that if a bill was once brought into the House, however trifling or however absurd its object might be, it was necessary to discuss its merits, and that the blame lay with those who proposed the measure, not with those who stated their reasons for disapproving it. If he understood his right hon. friend, he opposed the bill on these grounds: first, because there was no call for legislative interference, and certainly every one must be sensible that the practice of bull-baiting was becoming every day less common; and, that though the practice was ever so reprehensible, there was no occasion for passing an act to render it penal. His right hon. friend had said, that the practice was not detrimental to morals: he had not ascribed to it such virtues as the hon. baronet seemed to imagine; but merely asserted its innocence, or rather said, that it was not more criminal than the daily amusements of the rich, a truth which all must readily allow. He had likewise objected to the unfairness of depriving the poor of their pastimes, while the great were left in possession of theirs, and many harsh laws were made that they alone might enjoy their favourite sports. Certainly, there could be no better principle for the legislature to proceed upon than to make no distinction between the different orders of the state, and that if any should be made, the comfort and happiness of the lower orders should be preferably attended to, therefore they ought to put a stop to the practices of hunting and shooting before they attacked bull-baiting. But gentlemen seemed to think, that they alone should enjoy the sports of the field; and that they might have the exclusive possession of them, they used their utmost exertions. If a foreigner had last year been allowed to sit below the gallery, what would have been his opinion of the members of the British legislature? Night after night, when the most momentous questions were to be discussed, he would have seen the benches empty, and scarcely as many present as would constitute a quorum. At last, upon entering he would have been astonished to sec the House crowded to very door, and would have asked with amazement, what great business comes on to-night ? Is a foreign power to be subsidized ? Is the question of peace and war to be decided ? It would be answered, no: these sage legislators have assembled to consider of the best means of preventing the common people from killing a bird, the shooting of which affords excellent sport to gentlemen, and which, when roasted with bread sauce, makes an excellent dish at dinner. Shooting was the grand employment of the English gentry, and their great object in the education of their sons was, to make them good marksmen; they delighted not "to prompt the tender thought,'' but " to teach the young idea how to shoot!" All this might be very well; but when they were so attached to their own sports, why should they wish to take away from the sports of the poor? He did not understand whether the hon. baronet, in exposing the shocking cruelty of the practice of bull-baiting, meant to say it was cruel to the dogs or to the bull. The amusement was a most excellent one; it inspired courage, and produced a nobleness of sentiment and elevation of mind. He could see no objection to it, which might not be urged against almost any other. The dogs were dangerous, and accidents might happen from the bull getting loose; but if the legislature were to interfere to put a stop to every practice which might possibly be productive of mischief to any individual, the House must sit unremittingly, making new laws, and many whimsical laws they would make. He himself lately, when walking down Ludgate-hill, had seen an over-drove ox overturn and gore a little old woman in a red cloak. How would the House have looked, had he that night brought in a bill with this preamble: " Whereas an over-drove ox did on Ludgate-hill overturn and gore a little old woman in a red cloak, be it enacted, &c.?" Yet more mischief, he was confident, was done in one year by the over-driving of oxen than by bull-baiting in twenty. The hon. baronet had objected to what his right hon. friend had said with regard to depriving the people of amusements, and had attempted to justify this by saying that their amusements were prejudicial to themselves and the community. But what could be more innocent than bull-baiting, boxing, or dancing! The only result he knew to be produced by what had been called " hops'* was, an increase of his majesty's subjects. The legislature ought not to interfere to abolish these practices; and, above all, ought never to interfere unless where there was "dignus vindice nodus." The dignity of the House would have been better preserved, had it never meddled with this story of a cock and a bull. It was absurd to legislate against the genius and spirit of the country. The putting a stop to bull-baiting was legislating against the genius and spirit of almost every country and every age. The natural instincts and mutual antipathies of animals had ever been made a source of amusement to man, and, notwithstanding all the laws that could be made, would continue to be so. Mr. Sheridan said, his hon. friend seemed to think that the proposers of the present bill had been guilty of the greatest absurdity. He could see nothing absurd in their conduct, but was rather inclined to apply that epithet to the conduct of those who in such long and laboured speeches had opposed it. In repelling this charge, his hon. friend had said, that if a trifling and absurd bill was introduced, it became necessary to enter at length into its merits; but if the present bill was so very trifling and excessively absurd, was there any occasion for speaking long against it ? Would it not have been better to have quietly left it to its fate? Such a bill spoke sufficiently for itself. According to the abettors of the practice of bull-bailing, it was not only to be tolerated, but to be encouraged, and a premium held out to encourage its frequency. But, in recommending bull-baiting, they had taken the bull by the horns; for they said, that it ought not to be abolished previous to the abolition of all the amusements of the rich; and that there should be no sort of distinction between the different orders of the state. If such argument had been adduced in a speech from his side of the House, the speaker would be denounced as a Democrat and Jacobite. The right hon. gentleman had even said that the laws were oppressive and tyrannical to the poor of this country, and that they were harshly and cruelly administered. He had compared the magistrates to senseless parents who torment their children, and said that the rich not only indulged in every gratification themselves, but took a delicious pleasure lessening the comforts and preventing the amusement of the poor. If these principles were acted upon, all balls routs, plays, masquerades, &c. should be rendered penal, or the lowest of the people should be allowed and enabled to participate in every piece of fashionable dissipation. It had been said, that this was a noble diversion and the source of all the bravery, gallantry, and generosity of Englishmen. What effects bull-baiting might produce in Spain, he would not determine; but there the men did not employ dogs to attack the bull; they attacked him themselves; and he supposed, that if the right hon. gentleman were present at a bull-bait, he would immediately set the bull at liberty, and give him a fair chance for his life. In that case, if not elevation of mind, at least contempt of danger, might be generated by the practice; but to tie the poor animal to a stake and set upon him a number of ferocious dogs, was cruel, disgraceful, and beastly. He had been very much amused by the right hon. gentleman's panegyric upon bull-dogs; but be did not apprehend that such very great evils would befall the state though the breed should become extinct. He did not admire the character of these animals to such an enthusiastic degree as the right hon. gentleman; they were sullen, stubborn, and treacherous; though, when they had once laid hold of any thing, they never let go their hold; and so far they resembled a placeman. The analogy which had been drawn between bull-baiting and other exercises was by no means fair. There was surely a mighty difference between that cowardly, beastly, execrable practice, and the noble amusement of cricket, and many others open to the lowest of the common people. He would be happy to concur in any plan for extending the enjoyments of the poor; but he was confident that bull-baiting was a source of wretchedness to them, and therefore this bill met with his hearty support. Sir Richard Hill said, that the legislature had frequently interfered with the sports of the public, as in the instance of bear-baiting, which was now prohibited. The practice of bull-baiting was general in many counties. In Staffordshire the lower orders spent much of their time in feasts of this sort: their days and nights were employed in pinning down the poor bull, and preparing the ferocious dog. He trusted, therefore, that the House would let the bill proceed. The House divided: For Mr. Windham's motion, 43; Against it, 41. The bill was of course lost. | ||||||||
|
|
| |||||||
 |  | |||||||
| ||||||||
| |||||
| | | | | |
| |||||
|
Animal Rights Timeline • Animal Rights Quotes • Animal Protection Law • Humane Education • Primary Source Historical Literature eBook Library: Free Full Text eBooks • Primary Sources • Activists Against Cruelty to Animals |
|
||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
[1800-Apr-18] "