(To THE EDITOR OF TUE "SPECTATOR.") SIE,—I have the highest
respect for the Spectator, and especially for its habitual sense of fairness, but I must take exception to the passage in the article in the issue of March 8th on the debate on the above Bill which states that the opposition to it as a piece of class legislation was disin- genuous. It is true that the authors of the Bill, with a fine disregard of proportion, classed stag-hunting with pigeon- shooting and rabbit-coursing; but it was perfectly obvious that the abolition of the last was the main, if not the sole, object aimed at, and can it seriously be contended that for an assembly composed largely of sporting landowners and Bishops to veto an essentially democratic form of amusement, how- ever objectionable, would be anything but a piece of class legislation ? Sports and amusements of a demoralising char- acter have been stopped by legislation in the past, but they were participated in and patronised by all classes of society, and if we are to have further legislation of this character, surely it is advisable that it should first receive the sanction of the House of Commons. The writer of the article remarks: "How Lord Newton can doubt whether rabbit-coursing is more cruel than shooting rabbits is difficult to understand." What I find it difficult to understand is that persons who shoot habitually (amongst whom I may include myself) can, with any sense of consistency, bring themselves to condemn "spurious sports," or even vivisection, on the ground of cruelty. Rabbit-coursing is doubtless a low form of amuse- ment, but I fail to see that it is more cruel than shooting. The writer argues that if a rabbit is knocked over by a charge of shot and killed, not much can be said on the score of cruelty. Quite so; but there are vast numbers of rabbits which are not so lucky, and I am disposed to think that a wounded rabbit pursued by beaters with sticks, or which escapes in order to die a lingering death at the bottom of a hole, enjoys no advantage over its unfortunate fellow which is coursed by dogs in the presence of yelling colliers. All sport, shooting more especially, is cruel, and in this country, at all events, it is becoming every day more artificial. To me, I confess, it seems advisable in discussing such questions that we should clear our minds of much sport- ing cant on the subject of what is spurious and what is legitimate. The line of division between the two has now become so narrow that it is almost impossible to condemn one apart from the other, and it is not for those who indulge in the pleasures of legitimate sport to denounce other forms, either because they are cruel or because they are spurious. Those, on the other hand, who have never taken, or who have ceased to take, the life of a beast, or bird, or fish for the purpose of their own amuse- ment stand in a totally different category.—Apologising for the length of this letter, I am, Sir, &ea NEWTON.
[We gladly publish Lord Newton's frank and straight- forward letter. Though no doubt the distinction is sometimes difficult, we cannot, however, agree that it is impossible to distinguish between spurious and legitimate sport. We must add that though we publish Lord Newton's letter, we cannot open our columns to any further correspondence on the subject.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
