Royal Hunt Tomfoolery

A year or two ago, saya the editor of London Truth, I took up the matter of the royal buckhounds, forl have always thonght that anything with less of the redeeming feature of sport than to cart a tame deer to some spot, turn it out, hunt it wiih dogs, aud, having hunted it down, put it hack in its cart for anOther day's "sport" ciumotwell be conceived. When I was engaged iu this crusade, I received mauy letters assuring me that the (loer like being pursued by dogs, although how the animáis oonveyed tlieir singular idea of pleasure to the writers of tho letters was uot explaiuod to me. Now that the bishops have joiued the usarte, we may hope that the cruel tomfoolery of this royal hunt will soou cease. The country pays tha costs. ïlie salaiy of the master of the Imckliounds (L1,200 per annuin) is always enjoyed by a nobleman, the occupant of tlie post changing with a chango of ministers. Besidès this tnere are salaries to huntsmen, whips and others, the purchase and keep of horses and hounds, etc. I should suppose that the total outláy nrat be about L8,000 per unnuin. Tliis is defráyed, it is i rué, from tlje civil list. But when the amount needed to raaintain the sovereign was investigated in order to arrive at the total necessary, this éxpenditure w"as included in the estímate. It is suggested by the bishops that the quany should cease to be deer and should henceforward be a red herring. But the idea, as anattributeof majesty, of the sovereign keeping a lot of dogs to run a f ter a red herring is ohildish.