The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-03-10 00:00:00

THE STOURBRIDGE OBSERVIETt.

shooting and pheasant battues ; and he pointed out that the
prohibition of the sport would ruin an important industry in
Lincolnshire—the rearing of pigeons. fie moved as an
amendment, " that although the Legislature is willing and
anxious to give further assistance in the suppression of
cruelty to animals, this House could not approve of a Bill
which threatens seriously to interfere with recognized and
legitimate sport." The second clause was the most objec-
tionable in the Bill; and he urged that if the hunting of
trained and domesticated animals were to be prohibited, all
field sports would be put an end to.
Mr. Forster supported the Bill, and said its only object
was to put down a cruel and disgraceful sport—a disgraceful
sport which demoralised all, rich and poor, men and women,
who took part in it. The Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals did their best to stop the cruelties prac-
tised in pigeon-shooting ; but generally speaking in the pre-
sent state of the law they found themselves powerless. He
thought that members could not do better for the encourage-
ment of real sport than to support the Bill. Cock-fighting had
been put down on the ground of its cruely, but there was this
to he said of cock-fighting, that the cock did enjoy it while
it lasted, but it could not be said that the pigeon enjoyed
his flight from the trap. He approved of the omission of
the second clause, and he advised honourable members on
the other side of the House to consider seriously how the
amusements connected with sport could be obtained with
the least amount of torture to animals.
Lord Percy confessed that one difficulty he felt in his mind
was that the reflection that year after year Parliament was
engaged in putting down the sports of the poor man while
It left those of the rich untouched. If pigeon-shooting could
be proved to be demoralizing it ought to be put down ; but
at the same time they ought to understand the grounds on
which; it was to be prohibited. For his own part he was
not much addicted to sports of any kind, and he regarded
fishing as the most stupid in which any man could engage.
But he did not see why they should single out one sport as
demoralizing unless they entered upon a crusade against all
Into which gambling entered.
Mr. Farquharson heartily sympathised with the Bill, and
said he would give it all the support in his power. His
strong objection to pigeon-shooting was based upon its
cruelty, its unsportsmanlike practices, and its degrading
surroundings.
Mr. C. Ross said it was a misnomer to call pigeon-shooting
sport. It did not come within the category of real sport.
He was as fond of sport as any man; but one of the first ele-
ments of sport was its uncertainty, whereas pigeon-shooting
was undertaken with the cold-blooded and deliberate inten-
tion of slaughtering a bird let out of a cage. He was
strongly of opinion that this so-called sport ought to be con-
demned by law as an unmanly pastime.
Mr. Monk defended pigeon-shooting, on the ground that it
was no more cruel than pheasant-shooting when the birds
were driven into a cover. If the Bill was to be persevered
with he regretted that the second clause was to be given up,
as there could be no more brutalizing pastimes than deer.
hunting and coursing.
Mr. Blake supported the Bill, and stated that he should in
Committee oppose the exclusion of the second clause.
Colonel King-Harman said that if the Bill were restricted
to the first clause he would support it. (Hear, hear.) He
had been a pigeon shooter, and gave it up because he con-
sidered it was a cruel sport. Whilst Britons continued to
eat beef, mutton, and game the desire for sport would con-
tinue, and there would be a certain amount of pain and
bloodshed. He objected to the Bill as interfering with
legitimate sport by the second clause, and hoped the House
would reject it as a sample of meddlesome humanitarian
legislation, which would by and by seek to reduce the whole
population to vegetarianism.
Mr. Reid heartily supported the Bill, and was certain that
more and more of these measures would be brought in to
put down cruel sport. (Hear, hear,)
Mr. Ecroyd and Mr. Heneage supported the first clause of
the Bill.
Mr. Labouchere would itte for the Bill as it stood, but
objected to the withdrawal of the second clause, which took
general powers for the prevention of cruelty. This clause
had been supported by many petitions, and he believed it
was supported by the general feeling of the country. (Oppo-
sition cries of "No ") He hoped the clause would not be
abandoned, though it might have to be modified so as to
allow stag-hunting.
Sir J. E. Wilmot argued that there was a great difference
between the shooting of pheasants and the shooting of
captive pigeons. His conclusion was that pigeon shooting
was not in any way legitimate sport.
Sir W. Harcourt said the discussion had shown that the
bill could not be called a party question, or that the Govern-
ment were required to influence the feeling of the House.
There was no doubt as regarded cruelty to animals that, for
some time past public feeling had been progressing in the
direction which every one would desire. (Hear, hear,)
Such sports as bull-baiting, bear-baiting, and cock-
fighting had long been condemned, and the only question was
whether the Bill of the hon, member for Glasgow was a
reasonable one. Personally he thought it was, and he was
therefore very strongly in favour of it. Althouzli they had
heard so many eulogiums upon the manly character of
sport, he thought that, while it had increased in quantity,
it had decreased in quality. He pointed out that, so
far as the athleticism of sport was concerned, walking
three or four miles in the ateernoon after a champagne
luncheon was a very different thing to the sport of our
ancestors, which had begun in the morning and lasted until
two or three o'clock in the afternoon. He advised Mr.
Anderson to make it clearly understood that all questions
of staghunting and foxhunting were taken out of the Bill,
that it would deal with the case of pigeon-shooting alone.
He believed the opinion of the country was against the
practice of pigeon-shooting, and that by supporting a bill
confined to that practice the House would represent the
overwhelming opinion of the country.
Lord R. Churchill said the Home Secretary's remarks
amounted to saying that the Government did not see their
way to make any political capita; out of the Bill, and
that he thought it of the greatest importance that the
House should decide the question for itself, because
it reflected the mind of the country, thereby intimating
that the Government did not reflect the mind ofthe country.
(laughter) He supported the Bill in its present form; and
contended that pigeon-shooting was now kept up solely for
the purpose of betting, If the second clause were abandoned
he should oppose the Bill (laughter) on the ground that it
would be dealing with the question in a very imperfect
manner. Its great merit was that it put down stag hunting,
which was strongly condemned.
Colonel Kingscote said he did not see any difference
between pigeon shooting and pheasant shooting. It they
admitted that pigeon shooting was cruelty, where were they
going to stop? Why not have a Bill brought in to prevent
the keeping of squirrels in cages, or the shaving of poodles
on the tenderest part of the body? (Laughter).
Lord A Percy desired te know the ground on which the
hon. member for sllasizow wished to pass the Bill. Was it
on the ground of cruelty or on the ground that the pastime
—he would not call it sport—of pigeon-shooting was de-
merelising ? If the que,tiou was one of its being a de.
sag;
nsoialising sport, the same argil weet3 applied to horse-
freedom 'at contrite* Or to-interfere racing. For these reasons he should oppose the Bill.
with individual liberty, but the practice of paying forty Mr. Anderson said allusion had been made over and over
or fifty men their wages in a publichouse was a perni- again to the ennouneement which he made at the beginning
cious one, and ou_ hs if possible to be avoided, lie of the debate, and he would just repeat it It was
looked with much jealousy on a measure of this kind, that he would he willing, if the House wished it, or
and his first impulse was to oppose it, but it should be borne if the House disapproved of i, either to modify* the
in mind that they were asked to deal with places which second clause or leave it out altogether. He gathered
stood in an exceptional position. Pnblichouses were that the sense of the House was to a large extent at
licensed by the State and they could not exist without least in favour of modifying the clause. (No, no). Be (eir.
the licence of the State. This was Part of the legislation of Anderson) did not propose to draw back from the announce-
the country, and therefore he held that the State had a ment he made at the beginning. Tne primary object of the
perfect right to see that the places which it licensed for the Bill was to get quit of pigeon shooting, and the second
sale of intoxicating liquors were properly used for legitimate object was to protect wild animals in menageries. He
purposes, and that they were not used for purposes which would, as regarded the second clause either modify it so
could lead to any public injury or disadvantage. He as to keep clear of hunting, or, if that was not practicable,
thought this was part and parcel of the conditions under he would withdraw the clause altogether. (Cheers.)
which houses of this kind received a licence from the Mr. Chaplin was at a loss to know on what grounds they
State. As to this particular measure, he said it was clear were asked to pass the Bill. He could not see what differ-
that the humble class of labourers to whom it applied ence there was in the cruelty of shooting pigeons from a
were bound hand and foot and that they must under the trap or partridges in a field. He should oppose the second
existing system go to the publichouse to receive their wages. reading of the Bill, not because he was less humanitarian
Be agreed that working men ought not to be placed in that than his brother members, but because he thougat it was
position. The wages should be paid elsewhere, and the one of those matters which had beet be left to public
publichouse should not be used for the purpose. It had opinion.
been urged that although the men went to a publichouse Mr. Gibson said he believed that it the Bill was passed as
they might nevertheless abstain Irene taking liquor. Well, it was now dratted, those who were interested in keeping
a great deal of the virtues of many of themselves depended up pigeon shooting would be able to carry it on with Ins-
on the absence of temptation, and if they brought people punity, notwithstanding the well intended legislation, and
face to face with temptation they were doing a thing which he thought it would have been a great deal better if the
was wrong, and which ought, if possible, to be avoided. Bill had been drafted with reference to any existing law.
(Rear.) He thought the Bill would do a great deal of
good by preventing the continuance of the present system. The debate was continued by Sir W. Barttelot, Mr.
Wiggin, Mr. Macartney, and Sir W. Hart-Dyke.
The House divided, and the numbers were : Mr. Anderson said he would, in order to meet the objec-
For the Second Reading tions which had been raised, move to commit the Bill,
Against ~ • • pro forma, in order that it might be re-cast, when he would
Majority omit Clause 2. (Hear, hear.)

a good one then there could be no two opinions on the sub-
ject. (Gear, hear.) It must be admitted by every one
that some mischief would result. No good master would
desire to pay wages in a publichouse, and no prudent work-
man would desire to receive them therein. The question
before their lordships was not tts to whether the practice
was a good one, but whether convenient or inconvenient
there should be a positive prohibition of wages being paid
in a publichoune. No one was better acquainted than he
was with the mischiefs that arose through drink • he had
noticed in the calendars that twice the numbers of. crimes,
exclusive of caws of fraud, in which there was no element
of violence, were committed on Saturday compared to any
other day. Saturday might be considered "pay day, drink
day, crime day." He was fully sensible of it but that was
not the question before the House. What they had to con-
sider was whether they would lay down a rule in the way
they were invited to do, and with no more materials than
had beau offered to them. He asked their lordships not to
do that, not only on this ground but for the further reason
that the men could do it for themselves if they chose.
(Hear, hear.) The object of this bill was to protect grown-up
men who were quite capable of taking care of themselves.
The noble earl admitted that it was a good rule that people
should he allowed to make their own arraneements, and
then argued that because one exception to that rule had
been allowed, another ought to be allowed also. Such an
argument as that would lead them on indefinitely if it
were allowed. This was probably the most prosperous
country in the world, and to what was its prospezity due?
Why, to the fact that the people had been left very much
to themselves, and had not been worried by Government.
The Trades Union Congress had approved the Bill, and the
opinion of that body was entitled to great respect ; but it
should be remembered that it represented skilled labour,
while the people who were paid in publichouses were un-
skilled labourers, a class who were not represented on the
Congress. At the same gathering, by the by, the nationali-
zation of the land was recommended. He wondered
whether the noble earl would some day bring that recom-
mendation before their lordships. (Laughter.) To pass the
Bill would be to take unnecessarily a step in the dark, and
he therefore begged to move that the measure be read a
second time that day six moaths.
The Earl of Shaftesbury claimed to be in some respects
the author of the proposal, inasmuch as it formed part
of the Mines and Factories legislation of 1842, and was
then received with acclamation by both Houses of
Parliament, and if it were rejected he believed their
Lordships would he taking a curse which would
lead to a reversal of that policy of the last fifty
years which bad done so much to ameliorate the
social condition of the great mass of the people.
Parliament had constantly interfered with individual
liberty for the general benefit of the community.
A mighty evil was shown to be imposed upon the weak
by the payment of their wages in places where intoxi-
eating liquors were sold, and it was for the Legis-
lature to come forward and extend the recognised prin-
ciple of p'rotecting those who were unable to protect
themselves. They were told that they were constantly
interfering with the liberty of the subject. Well, if they did
interfere it was with a view to the benefit of the nation.
The noble lord in his speechs-at the Westminster Hotel,
thought he had found an admirable illustration in the case
of the payment of the wages of boys in sweetmeat shops.
If they could prove that that practise had led to such
evils as those which this Bill was intended to meet, lie
would support a measure to put it down. Volenti non fit
injuria. Jf this was an interference with the liberty of the
working man it was one which the working man would
heartily welcome. If they took a walk through the districts
which these people inhabited they would find that seven-
tenths of the men and every one of the women would cry
out in the name of God to give them this legislation. He
was certain it would confer an inestimable benefit upon
them. if the House of Lords were to throw out a measure
of this kind which these people consider necessary for their
happiness, he should deeply regret it. He hoped their
lordships would give a second reading to this Bill, which in
his conscience he believed to be essential to the welfare of
the people. (Hear, hear.)

The Marquis of Lansdowne, though sympathising with
Lord Stanhope's object, regarded the Bill as a sample of a
class of legislation for which there was an increase demanded,
but which Parliament ought to view with great suspicion.
'

Lord Stanley of Alderley said that the noble marquis
would not support the Bill because people who were not
paid in a publichouse might go Into one in the same street.
But the advocates of the Bill wished that people should not
be compelled to go into a publichouse. It was only in
accordance with human nature, when it was raining or
snowing outside, If the publican had got a good tire, that
the men should think they ought to spend something for
what they called "the good of the house" in which they
were paid. If the wives of the men were asked they would
:al their lordships that they ought to be protected from the
publichouse.
Lord Brabonrne observed that whatever abstract reasons
there might be in favour of the measure, the practical incon-
venience of aboishing the custom of paying wages in public.
houses ought to be considered. It seemed impossible to keep
working men from public-houses, whether their wages were
paid there or not. The truth was that in all this legislation,
of which the noble earl had spoken in rather a melancholy
tone, it was difficult, if not impossible, to prevent men
from transacting their business in the way most con-
venient to themselves Moreover, no one had ever yet
succeeded in wholly removing temptation by grandmotherly
laws.
-• • -

---
Lord Cottesloe said that many working men altogether
declined to enter a publichouse except when the master
compelled them to do so in order to receive their wages.
That was a most arbitrary act on the part of the master,
and he doubted whether it was strictly legal. He hoped
the Bill would be read a second time, as its principle was
sound and good, but its provisions, if too stringent, might
be altered in committee.
Lord Roseberry observed that the Government had never
changed their attitude in reference to this question, but had
always regarded measures of the kind, and this in par-
ticular' as being useful if not very extensive in their scopo,
though they did not feel it their duty to take upon them•
selves the burden of promoting legislation in that direction.
That was the attitude they took in the present instance, and
after what had occurred last 'ear he thought the Bill had a
fair chance of success. The evidence for the necessity of the
Bill appeared to be overwhelming, and unless some fact
could be adduced on the other side, the Government had a
right to maintain the attitude of benevolent neutrality which
they adopted towards it last year.
Lord Salisbury hardly thought the House was sufficiently
informed for legislation on the subject, and should be sorry
if Parliamentary action was necessary to prevent men from
yielding to the temptation of getting drunk. He felt,
therefore, that they ought not, without previous inquiry,
to inflict great loss and inconvenience upon an unknown
number of people represented by the small employers of
labour.
- -

-----
Lord Granville sympathised with the general principle
enunicated by Lord Bramwell, and confessed that he was
not violently enamoured of the measure ; but its advantages
appeared to be obvious. and the labouring classes wished it
to pam
islat lon

58

. 20

.. .. -33

The Bill was then read a second time.

After some further business their lordships adjourned at
seven o'clock.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. Jacob Bright gave notioe
that on the 3rd of next month he will move a resolution con-
demning the contemplated treaty with Portugal in reference
to the Congo.
Mr. Peddie gave notice of a resolution for the Dlsestab-
lishment and Discndowment of the Church of Scotland.
Sir G. Campbell gave notice that on the second reading
of the Affirmation Bill, he would move the abolition of the
oath.

THE QUEEN'S DRAWING-ROOM.

Her Majesty the Queeu held a Drawing Room at
Buckingham Palace on Tuesday afternoon.

Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, her
Royal Richness Princess Christian of Schleswig-
Holstein, her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, his
Royal Highness Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, his
Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, her Royal
Highness the Duchess and his Serene Highness the
Duke of Teck, and his Serene Highness the Prince of
Leinangen were present.
The Queen wore a dress and train of black moird
antique and satin, trimmed with ostrich feathers and
jet, and a white tulle veil, surmounted by a coronet of
diamonds. Her Majesty also wore anecklace, breaches,
and earrings of diamonds, the Riband and Star of the
Order of the Garter, the Orders of Victoria and Albert,
the Crown of India, Louise of Prussia, St. Catherine
of Russia, the Spanish and Portuguese Orders, and the
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Family Orders.
Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales wore a
dress of dark green velvet over a jupe of pale green
brocade, embossed with gold, and volants of lace,
fastened with bunches of shaded carnations. Corsage
and train to correspond. Headdress a tiara of
diamonds, feathers, and veil, Ornaments—Diamonds
and the Liverpool diamond cross. Orders—Victoria
and Albert, the Crown of India, St. Catherine of
Russia and the Danish Family Order.

Her Royal Highness Princes; Christian of Schleswig-
Holstein wore a train and corsage of brown broch6
velvet, the train trimmed with silver fox fur over a
petticoat of vieux or satin, handsomely draped with
Honiton lace. Headdres—A tiara of turquoise and
diamonds, feathers, and veil. Ornaments—Turquoise
and diamondp. Orders—The Victoria and Albert, the
Crown of India, St. Catherine of Russia, the Portu-
guese, the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Family Order, the
Prussian Order for Care of the Sick and Wounded, the
Order of Louise of Prussia, and the Order of St. John
of Jerusalem.

Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice wore a bodice
and train of pompadour satin trimmed with shaded
roses. The petticoat of d'Argentin lace over salmon
satin. Headdress—Feathers, veil, and diamond stars.
Her Royal Highness also wore a necklace, brooch,
and earrings of diamonds, and the Orders of Victoria
and Albert, the Crown of India, the Portuguese, and
the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Family Order.
The Diplomatic Circle was attended by most of the
foreign Ministers.
The Foreign Ambassadors and Ministers having
been introduced in the order of precedence, s-veral
presentations were made in the Diplomatic Circle,
including Mrs. Lovell, wife of the United States
Minister, who was presented by the Countess Gran-
ville.

The General Circle included several of her Majesty's
Ministers.

Presentations to the Queen were made to the num-
ber of about one hundred.