not know where to stop, and that the amusements of hunting, shooting, and fishing, would become the next objects of suppres sion; to this idea, he could shortly answer, that these amusements have no more analogy to the barbarous practice in question, than anything the most opposite in their natures could have; and he must observe, with regard to the hon. gentleman who had beheld those scenes over and over again, that no man could advance such arguments or defend the practice, who had not been inured to it. But that gentleman said, "the object was, not to torture the animal-that cruelty was not inflicted for the sake of cruelty;" where was the difference in the effect, or in the tortures of the wretched animal, when the cruelty proceeded only from sport? He could conceive different sources of passion from which cruelty might arise, as wrath, malice, fear, cowardice, and worse than these, was it, when proceeding from beastly appetite, from the effect of gluttony; but certainly worse than any, or than all put together, was the nature of inflicting cruelty merely for sport. If the house suffered the bill to go to a committee, they could produce facts which must excite feelings of horror and indignation. What the hon. gentleman said of our deriving useful instructions from animals, was in a great degree well founded; but then it must be from animals in a free state of nature; in circumstances wherein, as the poet happily expresses it, you may

"Learn from the little Nautilus to sail."

But not from animals in a state of coercion or torture. He expatiated with great feeling, animation, and effect, on the barbarous custom of bull-baiting, as not only producing the most inconceivable tortures to the wretched animal, and often to the instruments of his torment, but tending to deaden the feelings of humanity in, and to brutalize the minds of the beholder, and at such sights women and children were often present; of this he stated some facts in illustration; among these, that of a brutal bull-baiter, who, possessing an old bitch that lately had a large litter of puppies, was willing to show the stanchness of her blood, and the extent of her prowess; he set the bitch at the bull, she pinned, and fastened on him, and in that situation he literally cut her to pieces, the animal still keeping her hold. He then sold the puppies for five guineas a-piece; after this he took out his knife, and in a climax of

brutality, cut the bitch's throat. These facts showed the diabolical and malignant spirit with which such sports were conducted, and encouraging those, instead of making a people manly and generous, would, by inuring them to acts of cruelty, render them base, and fit to submit to the yoke of tyranny, and to bow to a rigour beyond the law; and to encourage them in such acts of barbarism would also render the people barbarous and tyrannical in their turn, teach them to oppress the weak, by rioting in the blood and tortures of dumb and unoffending animals, and on all occasions, as a sure result, to bow the neck to the yoke of power. Such practices surely called for the interference of the legislature; they degraded the national character, as well as brutalized the people, and had incontrovertibly extended to the length of contra bonus mores. Undoubt

edly, as has been said, cruelties may be practised upon animals, and of the most shocking kinds, in circumstances which it was beyond the power of law to remedy. True, but if these prac-. tices were exhibited openly, they would become nuisances, and call for the interference of the legislature. Those bold and bare-faced practices, which exhibit their sanguinary details to the eye of day, should certainly be put down; it was a question, whether the existing laws may not be sufficient to remedy the evil, by the interference of the magistrates. However that

might be, the old law seemed to be worn out; its teeth could not be fixed upon the evil; it was the object of the present bill to remedy this defect, and to render the law efficacious.

General Gascoyne moved that the bill be read this day three months. The house divided. For the amendment 64; against it 5.

DECEMBER 8.

ARMY ESTIMATES-WAR WITH FRANCE.

MR. SHERIDAN said, sir, being in the situation alluded to by the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down, of not being able to agree precisely with any of those who have preceded me, yet of being, at the same time, unwilling to give a silent vote on the present occasion, I rise with some sentiments of reluctance. There is one thing, however, in which we all coincide; it is, that the crisis in which we are placed is so big with tremendous importance, so pregnant with mighty difficulties, so full of appre

hensions and dangers, that the house and the country have a right to know what are the intentions and views of those by whose exertions we may expect to be extricated from the complication of embarrassments, and snatched from the very brink of destruction. Sir, one of the circumstances I most regret in this debate is, the references that have been made to the characters and abilities of persons supposed to be fit to fill particular offices. I feel this as a subject of regret, and, feeling so, am sorry that my hon. friend near me made any allusion even to one man, whom of all men upon earth I most love and respect, because I do view the crisis to be one of such moment and peril; and because, if ever there was a time in which we should prove to the people of England that we are above all party feelings, that we are above all party distinctions, that we are superior to any petty scramble for places and power, that time is the present.Sir, in speaking upon these topics, I do find a disposition in some gentlemen to rebuke any man who shall deliver an opinion with respect to the First Consul of France. One hon. gentleman, who rebuked an hon. general that spoke before him, declared that he would not give his opinion with respect to the conduct of France to Switzerland; and what does his rebuke amount to? He confesses that, upon that subject, there can be but one opinion. Why then, sir, he either adopts the opinion of the hon. general or not. If he does adopt it, he gives us as strong an opinion against the conduct of France as can possibly be given. If he does not adopt it, why then all we can say is, that there are two opinions. "But what," he asks, "has Switzerland to do with the question?" It has this to do with it: the hon. general introduced the subject in this way; he contends that a power which is capable of such unprovoked aggression, and such perfidy, is the power that ought to be watched. But the hon. gentleman goes on to assert, that we have nothing to do with the case of Switzerland, nothing to do with France, nothing but with her power. Nothing but her power! as if that were little. He asks too," where is the great difference between France under the Bourbons and under her present ruler?" Why, sir, the hon. general inferred, from the conduct of France, that, with her growing power, she had a growing disposition to mischief. "But is that power," demands the hon. gentleman, "greater now than it was last June?" Perhaps it is not, sir; but her

mischievous disposition is greater; and if I am asked to bring a proof of the truth of my assertion, I must bring the case of Switzerland. Sir, if I see a purposed contempt of the independence of a nation; if I see a perfidious disregard of the faith of treaties; if I see a power withdraw her assistance, only to return and entrap a country of freemen with greater certainty; why then, I say, there has been a change, and a great change too, and that such a power we have a right to watch. "But," says the hon. gentleman, "we have no right to make use of invectives against the first consul of France." I will abstain if I can; I say if I can, because I feel that even a simple narrative may be construed into invective. With regard to the general question of a disposition to peace or war, I declare that I am as strongly and as sincerely for the preservation of peace as any man, and that I do not consider war as any remedy for the evils complained of. If a war spirit be springing up in this country, if a chivalrous disposition be observable, if a sentiment of indignation be rising upon the subject of the treatment of Switzerland, I for one shall contend that the treatment of Switzerland is no cause of war. I would therefore say, preserve peace if possible: peace if possible, because the effects of war, always calamitous, may be calamitous indeed, buckling, as we should be forced to do, all our sinews and strength to that power in a contest with her upon such grounds. I repeat, therefore, peace if possible; but I add, resistance, prompt, resolute, determined resistance to the first aggression, be the consequences what they may. Influenced by these sentiments, I shall vote cordially and cheerfully for this large peace establishment; and it is because I shall vote for it that I think myself bound to state my reasons. Sir, some gentlemen seem to consider what they advance as so many axioms too clear to need explanation or to require defence. But, when I vote for so large an establishment, I think myself not at liberty to bind such a burthen upon my constituents, without stating the grounds upon which I act, and the principles by which I am prompted. Sir, I have listened, with all the attention I am master of, to the different arguments that have been advanced in the present debate. One hon. gentleman, who spoke second, appears to be a decided enemy to a great establishment, and the reasons he gave for his opposition, I confess, perfectly astonished me. Luckily he has no rapid flippancy in his manner;

his sentiments are delivered too soberly and sedately to be mistaken. I am sure I mean nothing disrespectful to that gentleman, who amply repays the attention that is paid to him. But he says, "if ministers had only said to him that danger existed, he for one would have voted for the force proposed." Does he doubt the danger? He complains that his Majesty's ministers do not state it precisely. But does he pretend that he does not see and feel it? Can any one look at the map of Europe and be blind to it? Can any one have a heart to resist apprehended injury, and say that we ought not to be prepared ? "But," he asks, " why raise only one hundred thousand men? You can never equal the military power of France, and, as you cannot, why stop at one hundred thousand? Why not raise one hundred and twenty, one hundred and thirty, or one hundred and forty thousand ?" If this argument be worth anything, it applies equally to our raising only one thousand. Why, if we can never be equal to France, raise a man? Another gentleman, who spoke last, has alluded to alliances, and I agree perfectly with him in what he advanced against making any pledges. He has alluded to the fate of the pledges made in the war of the succession, in the war of 1741; but, if he meant to be impartial, he need not have gone back so far; he need not have travelled beyond the last war; he might have mentioned the pledges then given; he might have recollected the pledge of never giving up the Netherlands; he might have recalled to our minds the pledge of obtaining indemnity for the past and security for the future; he might have dwelt upon the pledge of exhausting the last drop of our blood in the contest for religion, order, and civilized society, the toto certatum corpore regni ; he might have reminded us of all these pledges made, and of all of them having been abandoned. He confesses his warmth of friendship for the late minister, and he certainly never showed it more than in stopping so short with his historical narrative of pledges. The next excellent reasoning of the hon. gentleman who spoke second against the proposed vote, is that, in the first year of the war, there will be an immense army drawn upon the opposite coast, and therefore, now it is not necessary to be prepared. When the army is upon your shores, when the trumpet of the enemy sounds at your gates, then it is time to be prepared. Appearance of security, he contends, often gives the effect of