COCK-FIGHTING.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2071, 24 August 1875, Page 2

COCK-FIGHTING.

It being proposed in England to make the lawg concerning cock-fighting more stringent with a view to its suppression, Admiral H. J. Kous, well known as the greatest living authority on all racing matters, has written one of his characteristic letters to the Times of June 17th in defence of a sport which he considers a "grand" one, as well as also being "an ancient and royal amusement." Two pleas only does the Admiral put forward in its defence—each as weak as any plea can be, the one being that if it be cruel, other things are tolerated which are just as cruel; the other, that it is a sport sanctioned by ancient custom and usage. To prove the first of these quasi reasons for the maintenance of cock-fighting, the Admiral adverts to other sporting matters as hunting, coursing, fishing, and shooting, alleging in the case of fishing that nothing can be more cruel or brutal than to impale worms or live bait for the sake of inveigling fish, and 'that though it may be a remarkably pleasant thing to have a fine strong salmon at the end of one's line, still the salmon probably entertains a different idea of the sport. As regards shooting, the Admiral takes the case of battues and pigeon shooting, where numbers of birds are merely founded and left to perish miserably or be eaten by rats. We altogether demur to this reason of the Admiral's, that because other things are allowed which are cruel therefore cock-fighting, though cruel, should be allowed also; not only on the principle that two blacks don't make a white, but also because that in fishing and shooting the cruelty, if it exists, is hot made a prominent feature of the sport, neither, is it calculated to

degrade and brutalize the taste, as is the case with cock-fighting. We are far from defending the system of battues, neither do wo.;?, suppose that manyreal sportsmen thank the late Prince Consort for their introduction; but at any rate if many -birds wounded by incompetent marksmen are left to be the prey of rats and vermin* the' lovers of the sport are not called together to gloat over the sufferings of their .victims. Granted that in every sport where death is an adjunct, some amount of cruelty must necessarily take place, it all comes to this, that the line of toleration must be drawn where the sport is followed, not for the sake of the sport, but for the sake of the cruelty. Perhaps a coursed hate suffers as - much actual pain in its run for . life, as a game cock killed by a fair spur stroke from its antagonist. Few who have seen much coursing on some, such plain as Altcar, where the Waterloo cup is run for, will deny this. But no delight is taken by the spectators in the death of the hare, nor is its death in any way necessary to the sport, or the killer of the hare necessarily the winning greyhound ; whereas the sufferings of the fighting cock, its. mangled comb and wounded form are brought directly in the face of the spectator, and cannot but have a debasing and brutalizing effect. The Admiral's second reason is no better than his first; he defends cockfighting, forsooth, because we have precedents for it in history ! It is with this view that he tells the story of Themistocles, who caused two cocks- to fight before his army when besieging Dalmatia, to show his men how to fight to the death. He quotes the historian Pomponius Mela to prove that the Roman Empire did not begin to * decline until the governors had given up cock:fighting, and that Severus was unable to conquer Britain until he had rendered his officers emulous of glory by an exhibition of fighting cocks ; also that Gustavus of Sweden and Christian of Denmark —two justly celebrated, men— showed how they regarded cockfighting, when iv a conversation the Swede told the Dane he had no cause to fear his enemies since they had abandoned cock-fighting, and the Dane remarked that he preferred " cockers" to all other soldiers in his army. Surely these things, even if true, are no reason why we, in a more civilised age, should tolerate the practice. If these things be anylreason, why not revert again to gladiatorial exhibitions and wild beasts fights?. If .because we read that Henry VIII. buiit for himself a |stately cockpit at Whitehall there be any Treason why we should do the like, there exists the same reason why we should return .to bear baiting in our sports, and trial by combat in our law courts, for each of which we have abundant precedent. The Admiral declares that cock-fighting fosters courage and endurance, and that he himself, were it not illegal, would gladly go 200 miles to witness a main of cocks fighting. Suum cuique—each to his taste) and if the Admiral wishes to indulge his taste in spite of the illegality of the proceeding, he has plenty of example to justify him in that Henry VIII, whom he quotes as a cock-fighting monarch, himself broke the laws prohibiting the amusement made during the reign of Edward 111, and again in his own. We deny, however, that cockfighting, or any cruel sport, tends to foster courage or any other noble quality; and experience points out that the wretches who now assemble" to witness two of God's creatures mangle each other for their amusement are in a fair fight the greatest cowards out; and in spite of the eminence of Admiral Eous as a sporting * authority, we rejoice that cock-fighting does not form now one of the amusements prevalent at the Thames.