The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-03-10 00:00:00

With regard to what the Attorner-Henera had said, he (Mr. Mar.'
tin) was ready to admit that the hrtt clause wanted definition, as to
overloading horses or other animals ; hot the observation equally
applied to the former Bill ; but there could e,e no objection to going
into a Committee, because this circumstance would then be ree-
-1 tided. He would ask the Attorney-General, who had alluded to
the clause respecting bulls, if bulb were not protected by the for.
mer Bill ? The Attorney-General did not reply ; and he (Mr.
Martin) assured the house, that die Attorney-General had his fee
of two guineas now in his pocket, while his opinion lay in his (Mr.
Martin's) ; it declared thus:—" I am clearly of opinion that bull.
baiting is prohibited by the existing lass." He would therefore
ask the A ttorney .General, whether he could have any objection that
the people adorned have the full benefit of the laws which had been
given than ? Ile (Mr. M.) would now take the bull—.:nd take him
by the horns. It is the opinion of the .Attorney-General that bulls are
protected ; but was it protecting them when a fine of 5L was the only
punishment for the crime of hull-baiting? He would ask, was there
any town or city in die kingdom, where, wen the people had a mind
td bait a bull, they would not make up the sum of 51. to pay the
tine ? Ile knew it to be a fact, which was authenticated by affida-
vits, that in Stamford, when the savages baited a bull, they have
cut oft; with their knives, pieces of flesh from the animal, and
roasted them while the animal was alive. Ile (Mr. Martin) would
again ask the Attorney-General, since he had given his opinion,
and had his two guineas in his pocket, what objection he could
have to the more effectual protection of these animals ? All that
those who now wished to bait a bull had to do, was, to get the
51. to pay the tine, and they might then do as they pleased. Ile
trusted that the humanity of the Attorney-General would prompt
him to allow the as to be made a misdemeanour. e hoped Hhd the
•

(louse would go into a Committee, end ascertain what needed re-
vision and what did not. He would ask the House what klagistrate
would prosecute a case of atrocity at a Quarter Sessions ? He asked
the question at a former penod. and he was told that it was
illusory to expect that any such prosecution would be made.
lie would ask the Attortier-lictieral whether, by the opinion
for which he received his fee, he thought that bull-baiting was
abolished,—whether the tine of live pounds, or imprisonment for two
month*, wits sufficient to abolish it ? AU that was necessary lobs
done, in order to commit the gime, was to go about with • hat
collecting hi., and then those Who wished it might safely bull bah.
Tile Attorney-Oeneral had expressed a great wonder how the DM
could have passed a second reatlltlg.s but was not the present •
transcript of the last ? And why did not the Attorney-General
come forward on the passing of that Bill to oppose it ? He (Mr.
Martin) knew the reason why ; it was because the late Lord Lon-
donderry (end he would take this opportunity of paying a just
tribute to his humanity), who sat up late, later than the Attorney-
tieneral was likely to do to-night, had hinted a wish to his friends
that they should support the DU
The ATTORNEY-GENF:HAL (across the table)—llow does
the lion. Member know that?

Mr. MARTIN—IIe told me so. Thus he (Mr. Martin) could
account for the difference in the past and present conduct of the
Attorney-General. whose arguments were never less conclusive
than they now were against the Bill. There were two petitions
presented in another Douse in support of this Bill; the one by •
Reverend Prelate, and the other by a Noble Duke. Ile would
conclude by hoping that the House would give the subject its due
consideration, and at all events, allow it to come before a Com-
mittee.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose. . . _

AIr..MARTIN—What, is not the Attorney-General enough?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL proceeded. lie did not oh.
jest to the Bill of his Learned Friend, the Member for Galway,
which was passed two or three years ago, for imposing a fins on
those who were guilty of cruelty ; but he thought this statute was
enough, although his Hon. Friend was not of that opinion.
The Member for Norwich (Mr. W. Smith) supported the
Bill by an argument which cuts off the present Btll root and
brunch, because it was sought to be introduced only on the princi-
ple that the former was Insufficient ' • yet the Honourable Member
states that the forma Bill had produced the very best effects. lie
would ask the lion. Member for Galway why overriding, as well as
overloading a horse, was not to be prohibited by the Bill ? Or
might a man ride a hone to death, and be punished for placing on
him a feather too much ? Ile trusted the House would legislate
consistently. Ilia principal objection to the Bill was, what the
Attorncy-General had noticed, the clause which was to empower a
Magistrate to fine a man, or to prefer an indictment ageinst him.
Ile thought as well as any one, of the character, integrity, and
humanity of Magistrates, but he was against placing so much power
in their hands. lie should therefore dissent from the opinion of
the lion. Member (Mr. Martin), whom he respected out of the
House more than he did in it, confining his observation to the
present point—with whom he generally sided and always sym-
pathised.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said it appeared to him that those who
opposed the present 13111 did not use argument, but were contented
with ridicule. He conceived the object of the lion. Member for Gal-
way was this--to convince the House of the necessity of altogether
nutting a stop to proceedings which, before the pumng of the tor-
tun Bill, had increased every day, by which the moral feelings
of the people had been infected, and which bad, in many instances,
forced them from cruelty to animals to cruelty to man. The lion.
Member for Galway had, greatly to his credit, succeeded in
what a Noble Lord deceased (Erskine) had faiketo accomplish.
it was the tertunate lot of Ma Mania to attain his most desir.
able object. If there were ivy obloquy attached to the sup-
porters of the be (Dr. Lushington) was willing to share it ;
because he thought the morals of the people depended greatly on
preventing them from coninduing acts of atrocity. If he had
thought the Bill would have taken its present course, he would
have presented letters on the subject front various parte of the
country, to prove how very frequent bull-baiting still is, and how
very insufficient the laws against it an. Ile hoped the House
would at least go into a Committee on, and eamigne the write of,
the Bill.

fr:tlrl-NN objected to the Bill as an improper subject for
legislation.
Mr. IVARRE supported the Bill. Ile believed that all the
eases of cruelty which had been brought before the Magistrates
had been clearly made out.
All. Alderman BRICDOES supported the Bill. Ile believed,
persons who in early life would tie a kettle toe does tail generally
made their exit at tha gallows.
Mr. GOC4I3I.ItN objected to the bill, because the former was
euttictent, and had been successful; the present would destroy all
proportion between the crime and the_puntelunent.
Mr. G. BANK 4 supported the Bill, but thought some of the
chutes objectionable.
Mr. H I'SKISSON made a few remarks in opposition to the
Mr. COI.IITENAI observed that the present law* were effec..
I live, and that consequently any alteration was needless.
ritraogen were then ordetul to withdraw; but there not being
forty members present, the Bonepresent, adjourned at a quarter before
twelve o'clock.