tion, and infidelity, were but too he thought it prudent to prevent frequently inculcated, to his certain knowledge. He was a great friend to a toleration of all Chriftians, of whatever fects. By Chriftians, he meant those who acted up to the thirty-nine articles, the confeffion of the Saxon churches, those who conformed to the ancient difcipline of the proteftant church, as fettled at the reformation: not those who wanted to reform; to pull down the hierarchy, and appropriate to the other ufes the patrimony of the church; who denied the divinity of our Saviour, and wanted to get rid of the Athanafian creed. In all fuch queftions as the prefent, the grand confideration fhould be ne quid detrimenti ecclefia Anglicana capiat. There was great danger to be apprehended from what were called charity and Sunday fchools, in and about the metropolis. He hoped that in a future feffion, parliament would take it into confideration. As for the prefent bill, he moved that it should “stand committed for that day three months." The bithop of Winchefter differed almost entirely from him of Rochefter, refpecting the bill under confideration. The bill, he obferved, was two-fold. It was an enabling bill, and a bill of refiraint. He thought the enabling part of it well warranted by the occafion. It was wile, confiderate, and candid, to fuffer the religious orders or communities, confifting either of British born national fubjects, or aliens, that were through unforefeen misfortunes and irrefiftible adverfity, driven to this country, to put in fafety as to their religious rites while in this kingdom; and, at the fame time, he approved of the reftrictive part of the bill, because any addition to their numbers, and to guard against any poffible danger, from their zeal to make converts. As to three parts of the bill, he differed fo far from the bishop of Rochefter, that he thought them fevere and needlefs. The bishop of Winchester, therefore, as a friend to genuine toleration, and the conftitution of this country in church and fiate, declared, that he would fupport the bill. His The lord chancellor, Loughborough, left the woolfack to declare that he had no particular liking to the bill, and that he agreed to se'veral of the objections that had been urged againft it; but thought, nevertheless, that there were parts of it which contained fome good provifions, and might, by amendments, be rendered highly ufeful. He wished, therefore, that it might not be rejected on the fecond reading, but go into a committee. lordship produced a letter, in which the author, whofe name he said he would not mention, imputed the origin of the bill to a literary controverfy between doctor Sturges, the chancellor of Winchester, and Mr. Milner, a Roman catholic clergyman, who had published a hiftory of the Antiquities of the City of Winchefter. The letter-writer reprefented doctor Sturge's publication as illiberal, violent, intolerant, and even inflammatory. The lord chancellor himself thought that doctor Sturges's publication was candid, liberal, and temperate, while Mr. Milner's was replete with ftudied afperfions, abufe, and irritation.— But, having read and commented on the comparative characteristics of the controverfy, he begged the houfe to recollect that Mr. Milner was : . was one of the established Roman catholic clergy, long refident in this country that, in fact, the eminent clergy in France had nothing to do with the controverfy.If the bill, therefore, had been drawn with a view to the controverly in question, it was neither fair nor juft to make it bear on thofe who were unconnected with the controverfy. His lordship repeated his wifh, that the bill might go into a committee, because the letter-writer's fettiments fhewed that fome anxious feelings were entertained. The bishop of Rochefter rofe again and faid, that he alfo had read the two works alluded to, and he agreed in part with the criticilm of the noble and learned lord upon the woolfack, upon the different merits of the two writers. Mr. Milner had undoubtedly ufed too many afperities againft our eftablished church and the practices of its minifters, but here the bifhop was called to order by lord Hardwicke. The bifhop was fo eager to (peak, and to obtain a hearing of his criticism on the two polemical divines juft mentioned, that it was with difficulty he could be reduced to filence by the repeated calls to order by lord Hardwicke, fupported by the chancellor and all the houfe. When, at laft, he was obliged to fit down, amidft a general and long continued cry of order, he proclaimed in a voice louder ftill than the cry of order" that all he meant to have faid was, that, in many cases Mr. Milner had the advantage of the chancellor of Winchefter, who had not fhewn fufficient zeal for orthodoxy, and the difcipline of our proteftant establishment." That eagerness to fpeak, and make long fpeeches, which feems to be, if poffible, even increasing in our parliament, though not ufually fo great in the upper as the lower houfe, calls to mind, by the affociation of diffimilitude and contraft, that becoming and dignified modesty that prevailed in the Roman fenate; in which the fenators did not declare their opinion on queftions, till they were called on in their turn to do fo, by the home conful, or the prætor, or other magiftrate, who convoked and prefided in the fenate. Had Julius Cæfar, or Cato, been clamorous for a hearing of thofe juftly celebrated orations on the confpiracy of Cataline, much of their effect would probably have been loft, with the diminished gravity, dignity, and apparent impartiality of the fpeaker. The question for the commitment of the monaftic-inftitutionbill was then agreed to. It was now moved, "That the bill ftand committed to this day three months." The motion was carried, and the bill was of course loft. It was matter of fome furprize to many, both that the poor diftreffed catholics fhould be fo zealous for the continuance of their orders, and that the proteftants fhould be fo cafily alarmed at the dying efforts of their adverfaries. It is in moments of • At Marcus Portius Cato rogatus fentertiam-Sed Cæfar, ubi ad eum ventum eft rogatus fentertiam a confula fujufcemodi verba locutus eft. SALLUST. BELL. CALALINA-It appears that the opinions of the fenators were asked in the order of their dignity-Tum D. Junius filanus primus fentertiam rogatus, quod eo tempore conful dignatus erat. Do. VOL. XLII. [L] distress diftrefs that religious zeal is ftrongest and most fuccefsful. It is in like manner, at a time of danger to religious establiment, that fomewhat of the fpirit that produced them is rekindled. But, in the prefent cafe, it feems probable, that the zeal of the proteftants was not awakened but by the interference of ecclefiaftics. There was another bill, for the fecurity of religion and morality, brought into parliament in the courfe of the prefent feffion, more fuccefsful than that for the regulation of monaftic inftitutions. This was a bill prefented, on the twenty-firft of April, by Dr. Beilby Porteous, the bishop of London, for the better obfervance of Good-Friday; which was paffed without any oppofition. The bill for regulating monaftic inftitutions was rejected, chiefly on the ground that it was unneceflary: fo allo was a bill brought in by fir William Pulteney, on the third of April, for preventing the practice of bull-beating. The debate on this bill afforded not a little entertainment; and formed a kind of episode in the parliamentary epopee of this year, not unlike thofe comical digreffions with which epic poets relieve the ferious air of their narration and defcription. The fecretary-at-war, let himself to prolong the war between bulls and dogs, as well as that of war with the great enemy of this country, France. What, faid Mr. Windham, was there fo alarming in the practice of bull-baiting? It had exifted more than a thousand years, without producing any of the crying evils which were now attributed to it? It was not unfair to attribute to the manly amufements of the people of England, of which bull-baiting was one, much of that valour which was fo confpicuous in their martial atchievements by fea and land.Courage and humanity, too, feemed to grow out of their wholesome exercifes. The sport here, he admitted, was at the expense of an animal which was by no means a party to the amufement: but it, at the fame time, ferved to cultivate the qualities of a certain species of dogs, which offered as much pleafure to their owners, as greyhounds did to others. And why fhould the butcher be deprived of his amufement more than the gentleman? The advocates of this bill propofed to abolish bull-baiting, on the fcore of its cruelty. It was ftrange enough that fuch an argument thould be employed by a fet of perfons who had a moft vexatious code of laws for the protection of their own amufements. He did not mean, for the prefent, to condemn the game-laws: but when gentlemen talked of cruelty, he must remind them, that it belonged as much to fhooting as to bull-baiting; nay, more fo, as it frequently happened, that when one bird was hot, a great many others went off much wounded. Accidents to the lookers on did fometimes happen at bull-baiting; but, he was fure that he had known more fatal accidents to arife, in the county of Norfolk alone, by quarrels between the game invaders and the game prefervers, fome being killed on the fpot, and others hanged afterwards for the murders, than ever happened from bull-baiting. the whole, there did not appear to Mr. Windham to be any real evil in the practice of bull-baiting; that it would be trifling to legillate on On fucb fuch petty concerns; and that it was in the prefent cafe abfurd, as the .practice was already falling fo-much into difufe; and that it feemed as if the bill had been brought in now, left it could be quite abolished before it could be paffed. Mr. Windham concluded a very ingenious and pretty long fpeech, by moving, "That the confideration of the report of the committee on the bill fhould be delayed till that day three months." Sir William Pulteney fpoke much of the cruelty of bull-baiting; a cruelty much greater than that of hunting or fhooting: for, in bull baiting, a poor animal was tied to a ftake, with no means of defence or escape, and tormented and tortured for a whole day, or even for feveral fucceeding days. He alfo fpoke of the drunkennefs, riot, and diffipation, among the lower claffes, which bull-baiting occafioned.The following was a pretty home. ftroke to Mr. Windham: "If bullbaiting is declining and getting fo much into difufe, as the honourable gentleman would reprefent, I wonder that he does not propose to grant a bounty for its encouragement. But it is rather againft part of the right honourable gentleman's arguments, that though it is fo much neglected now, the warlike fpirit of the nation has not at all declined. Has not as great courage been difplayed in the courfe of the prefent war, by our foldiers and failors, as at any former period?" Mr. Canning did not understand whether the honourable baronet meant to fay, that the fhocking cruelty of bull-baiting was cruel to the dogs, or to the bull. The amulement, he said, was a most excellent one; it infpired courage, and pro duced a nobleness of sentiment and elevation of mind. He could fee no objection to this manly and generous amufement, which might not be urged against almost any other. The dogs were indeed dangerous, and accidents might happen from the bulls getting loofe; but, if the legislature were to interfere, for the purpose of stopping every practice which might poffibly be productive of mifchief to any individual, the houfe might fit, unremittingly, making new laws; and many whimfical laws they would make. He himself lately, when walking down Ludgate-Hill, had feen an overgrown ox overturn and gore a little old woman with a red cloak. How would the house have looked, had he that night brought in a bill, with this preamble: "Whereas an overgrown ox did, on Ludgate-Hill, overturn and gore a little old woman in a red cloak, be it enacted, &c." What would the house think of a bill founded on an accident to a little old woman in a red cloak? Mr. Sheridan faid, that when he came into the houfe, Mr. Windham was prefacing his speech with fome obfervations on the hypocrity of thofe who profeffed themselves very folicitous with regard to the comforts of the poor, and confidering the beft fyftem of laws to promote their amufement and happinefs. He had afked what was before the house, and his aftonishment was great, when he was told that it was bull-baiting.-It had been faid, that this was a noble diverfion, and the fource of the bravery, gallantry, and generofity 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 ! [L2] bull. bull They attacked him themfelves; and he fuppofed, that, if the right honourable fecretary-at-war were prefent at a bull-baiting, he would immediately fet the bull at liberty, fight him himfelf, without any canine allies, and give him a chance for his life. In that cafe, if not elevation of mind and generofity of fentiment, at least contempt of danger, might be generated by the practice; but, to tie the poor animal to a flake, and to fet upon him a large number of ferocious dogs, was inhuman, cruel, difgraceful, and beaftly fuch a fcene could excite nothing but brutality, ferocioufnefs, and cowardice. It must debafe the mind, deaden the feelings, and extinguish every fpark of courage and benevolence. Sir Richard Hill fai, that the horrid practice of bull-baiting had become dreadfully prevalent in Shrophire, and was rapidly (preading over other parts of England. Men neglected their work and their families, and in great crowds fpent whole days in witneffing thofe barbarous exhibitions. From the bait ing-field they retired to the alehoufe, and wafted the whole night in debauchery, as they had done the day in idleness. He was aftonifhed at the oppofition the bill had experienced from the right honourable 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 divifion of the house, Mr. Windham's amendment was carried by a majority of 2: confequently the bill was loft for the prefent. It was with much fatisfaction that we were made acquainted with the declaration of Mr. Sheridan, on that occasion, that a friend of his had it in contemplation to bring in a bill to punith cruelty to animals, which he would heartily fecond, as the times loudly called for it. Ifwe are to juftify cruelty in one inftance, 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 Mofaic 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 fpeech of other tortured ani mals in the fable :-" Though this be fport to you, it is death to us.” The two bills juft noticed were rejected, chiefly on the ground of their being unneceflary. It 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 attention of the house of peers, the fecond of April, to cafes of parliamentary divorce. As he had announced his intention to propofe a regulation that might tend to check the crime of adultery, he felt it incumbent on him to fubmit it to their lordships confideration. His object was, to bring in a bill to make it unlawful for any perfon, on account of whofe adultery a bill of divorce fhould be applied for in that house, to intermarry with the perfon from whom the party might be divorced. He would not trouble the house by going far back into history, to flew that he was fupported in his propofition by the general practice of ancient and modern times; it was fufficient for him to direct their lordfhips attention to the fettled practice that had always prevailed, and fill did prevail, in Scotland, where the parties, after being divorced, were never permitted to marry at all. And fuch also was the law of this |