§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough),in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said its object was to put a stop to the cruelty of hunting and shooting animals kept in confinement; and that it received the support of sportsmen, particularly Tory sportsmen, all over the country. He hoped it would be allowed to pass its Second Reading and go into Committee, when he would be ready to accept any reasonable Amendments.
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE (Rochester)said, that though every one should sympathise with the motive of the hon. Gentleman, it would be rather rash to agree to his Bill straight off. Besides, it was a Bill of a more extensive character than the hon. Gentleman had given the House to understand. It would stop, not alone pigeon shooting and rabbit coursing, but also stag hunting and pheasant shooting. He was a sportsman himself in an humble way, and he had 1183 no great sympathy with rabbit coursing or pigeon shooting, but because those sports did not come up to his ethics of sport was no reason why he should try to prevent any of his fellow-countrymen who liked them from indulging in them. If it were accepted that human beings should not inflict sufferings on animals, then let all such sports be stopped, for they were all exactly on the same basis. The amount of intense suffering caused by a day's pheasant shooting could hardly be exaggerated; but that did not prevent him from participating in the sport, because, personally, he did not hold the extreme view that the suffering of animals was to be the limit of human enjoyment in sport. But, on the other hand, if he were to be allowed to shoot pheasants he could not in reason say that other people should not be allowed to shoot pigeons. Legislation must rely on a stronger basis of logical consistency than the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had put forward. The Bill would also stop stag hunting, a sport in which an enormous number of persons were interested, not only as a means of recreation, but as a means of livelihood. The hon. Gentleman said it made a difference if the stag was kept in confinement. But why—what difference did it make? He certainly was not prepared to stop his fellow-countrymen from stag hunting on such feeble arguments as the hon. Gentleman had put forward. If the opinion was held that the sufferings of the animals were terrible, that sporting ought to be prohibited, then put a stop to sporting altogether; but until they resolved to take such an extreme course, the Bill rested on a totally illogical basis, and ought not to be passed into law.
§ MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL (Devon, Tavistock)supported the Bill. He said the question was, what was sport? There were different kinds of sport, some of them noble, and some of them far from noble. But the idea most people had of sport was to pursue the wild animal with some purpose, generally that of obtaining food. [Cries of "The fox!" and Laughter.] The fox, at any rate, was not kept in confinement—[An hon. MEMBER: "The hounds are"]—except in certain cases; and where, the fox was kept in confinement few people would defend the sport. The noble 1184 Lord said that there was wanton cruelty in all sport. There might be cruelty in sport, but it was not always wanton, like hunting a rabbit turned out of a sack or a deer loosed from a box. His experience of stag hunting was the chase of the wild stag, which was killed to be eaten. He should support the Bill.
§ MR. E. LEES (Birkenhead)said, that a vast field was opened by the consideration of this Bill. It was delightful to one's feelings as a sportsman to find a Gentleman on the Radical Benches denouncing the practice of hunting bagged foxes; but there was a great deal in the Bill which could not be passed without careful discussion. He yielded to no man in his endeavours to conduct sport without cruelty; and he differed from his noble Friend's opinion that there was a vast amount of cruelty in pheasant shooting, though he admitted that it was the highest form of skill with the gun and the lowest form of sport. He could well appreciate the sentiments of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who came from a country where the wild stag was hunted. Beside that sport, no doubt, the hunting of the tame stag was an insignificant affair. Even a good run with the fox-hounds hardly surpassed the hunting of the wild stag with the Devon and Somerset hounds. But if the hunting of the tame stag was not a high class of sport, there was no cruelty associated with it; and why should it be done away with? Had the hon. Member who introduced the Bill ever hunted the stag himself? He did not say that the stag preferred to be hunted rather than to be at liberty, but every precaution was taken to prevent cruelty. The stag was well kept, and he was hunted many times. He did not defend the practice as a sport, but if there was no cruelty in the system, and many persons found pleasure in the pursuit, why did hon. Members wish to put a stop to it? After referring to his own experience of the hunting of animals kept in captivity while following the late Lord Wolverton's hounds, the hon. Member called attention to Her Majesty's buckhounds, which were kept, he said, for the purpose mainly of hunting a tame stag. This Royal pack of hounds had been kept up for many years at the expense of the country in order to provide sport through the hunting 1185 of a tame stag. Though many persons were interested in, and found pleasure in, the pursuit, he did not go so far as to say that it was real sport; and if the hon. Member in charge of the Bill could show that there was any cruelty connected with it he would be prepared to support him in putting an end to the practice. No real sportsman wished to perpetuate cruelty; the maintenance of cruelty was alien to the instincts of all sportsmen. Was any hon. Member, however, prepared to say that there was any cruelty connected with the establishment of the buckhounds? [An hon. MEMBER: "Yes."] If any hon. Members were prepared to maintain this, he wished then to ask how it was that in a thin House, and without adequate notice, the hon. Member should be so bold as to ask that the House should abolish a practice which for many years past had been carried on under the sanction of a Department and of an official of the Government, who had in his gift a considerable amount of patronage?
§ MR. A. C. MORTON rose in his place, and claimed to move: "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Deputy Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. ELLIOT LEES (Birkenhead)thought that the hon. Member not only wished to destroy the amusement of the people, but to destroy them without debate. Before such a Bill as this was passed the question of the existence of the buckhounds must be faced. Why did not the hon. Member give the House some instances of the cruelty which attended the pursuit of these animals?
§ MR. MORTONI could have given you hundreds of instances if I had had time.
§ MR. LEESYes; but the hon. Member, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, has not done so; and if he can give us those instances I shall be prepared to give them my consideration.
§ It being 12 of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.