148] -ANNUAL REGISTER, 1800. 



bull. They attacked him them- 

 selves ; and he supposed, that, if the 

 right honourable secretary-at-war 

 were present at a bull-baiting, he 

 would immediately set the bull at 

 liberty, fight him himself, without 

 any canine allies, and give him a 

 chance for his life. In that case, if 

 notelev'ationof mind and generosity 

 of sentiment, at least contempt of 

 danger, might be generated by the 

 practice ; but, to tie the poor animal 

 to a stake, and to set upon him a 

 large number of ferocious dogs, was 

 inhuman, cruel, disgraceful, and 

 beastly : such a scene could excite 

 nothing but brutality, ferociousness, 

 and cowardice. It must debase the 

 mind, deaden the feelings, and ex- 

 tinguish every spark of courage and 

 benevolence. 



Sir Richard Hill said, that the 

 horrid practice of bull-baiting had 

 become dreadfully prevalent in 

 Shropshire, and was rapidly spread- 

 ing over other parts of England. 

 Men neglected their work and their 

 families, and in great crowds spent 

 whole days in witnessing those bar- 

 barous exhibitions. From the bait- 

 ing-field they retired to the ale- 

 house, and wasted the whole night 

 in debauchery, as they had done 

 the day in idleness. He was asto- 

 nished at the opposition the bill had 

 experienced from the right honour- 

 able gentleman who had opened 

 the debate. Till he had heard his 

 long and learned speech, he did not 

 know that he had any objection to 

 the brute race being at peace. 



On a division of the house, Mr. 

 Windham's amendment was carried 

 by a majority of 2 : consequently 

 the bill was lost for the present. 



It was with much satisfaction that 

 we were made acquainted with the 

 declaration of Mr. Sheridan, on that 

 occasion, that a friend of his bad it in 



contemplation to bring in a bill to 

 punish cruelty to animals, which he 

 would heartily second, as the times 

 loudlycalledforit. Ifwearetojustify 

 cruelty in one instance, by acts of 

 cruelty in another, what is the vice 

 that may not be defended.'' The 

 brute creation are taken under the 

 protection of the Mosaic law, and 

 even by the Mahometan law. If 

 the bulls had had a representative 

 in the house of commons, he would 

 certainly, no doubt, have adopted 

 the speech of other tortured ani- 

 mals in the fable : — " Though this 

 be sport to you, it is death to us." 



The two bills just noticed were 

 rejected, chiefly on the ground of 

 their being unnecessary. 1 1 was not 

 on this ground that the bill, now to 

 be noticed, was rejected. 



Lord Auckland, pursuant to the 

 notice he had given, called the at- 

 tention of the house of peers, the 

 second of April, to cases of parlia- 

 mentary divorce. As he had an- 

 nounced his intention to propose a 

 regulation that might tend to check 

 the crime of adultery, he felt it in- 

 cumbent on him to submit it to their 

 lordships consideration. His object 

 was, to bring in a bill to make it 

 unlawful for any person, on account 

 of whose adultery a bill of divorce 

 should be applied for in that house, 

 to intermarry with the person from 

 whom the party might be divorced. 

 He would not trouble the house by \ 

 going far back into history, to shew i 

 that he was supported in his propo- | 

 sition by the general practice of an- ! 

 cient and modern times ; it was j 

 suflScient for him todirect their lord- ' 

 ships attention to the settled prac- 

 tice that had always prevailed, and ' 

 still did prevail, in Scotland, where 

 the parties, after being divorced, 

 were never permitted to marry at 

 all. And such also was the law of 



