KING’S NAME, AND PRINCE’S, WERE DRAGGED IN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18013, 25 November 1926, Page 1

KING’S NAME, AND PRINCE’S, WERE DRAGGED IN.

GARBLED CABLEGRAM TAKEN EXCEPTION TO. MEETING OF R.S.P.C.A, ENDED PEACEFULLY. The following letter, from the Hon. Stephen Coleridge, dated October 14, was received by the “Star” in the English mail which arrived yesterday: — Sir,—ln your paper of the 7th of June of this year you have a description of the annual meeting of the- R.S.P.C.A. You allude to the remarks of Lord Banbury (from tho chair) who brought into the discussion the King and the Prince of Wales. In my opinion this was quite improper and unfair. No one at the meeting had the slightest intention of attacking the Prince of Wales, for whom everyone has a loyal and even affectionate regard, but if reformers are never to attempt to put an end to a practice because some illustrious and admirable persons indulge in it there is no abuse or questionable practice in all history that would not have thus secured immunity from criticism. Finally your account states that the meeting closed in uproar. This is an entire invention. Nothing of the kind occurred. On the contrary, at the conclusion of the debate I myself proposed a vote of thanks to the Chairman and the meeting closed in the most friendly manner. I think it is" to be regretted that a mischievious invention of an uproar that never occurred should be spread about New Zealand. Your obedient servant, STEPHEN COLERIDGE. The Ford, Chobham. The report to which the letter refers was a Press Association cablegram from London, published by every metropolitan newspaper. It referred to the discussion on the bequest of the late Mrs Sarah Grove-Gradv, who left a fortune of half a million for the protection of animals, and who had the greatest abhorrence for the killing of creatures, even fish, for sport. The cabled report was as follows: A bitter attack on the policy of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals marked the annual meeting, when a resolution, moved by the Hon. Stephen Coleridge, Was carried expressing regret that the society had refused the Grove-Grady legacy of £IO,OOO. He described the council as “stone images sitting in ignoble immobility by the road of progress.” The refusal meant that they supported cruelties which the donor abhorred. He declared that the society should formulate its attitude towards hunting, which was distinctly cruel. Lord Banbury, replying, said the terms of the legacy rendered its acceptance impossible. “The King, our patron, shoots, and the Prince of Wales, our president, is an ardent huntsman, declaring that it is the finest sport of all. Dozens of other members hunt and shoot. We must get rid of the and the Prince of Wales and others* in order to accept the £IO,OOO. Following numerous periods of disorder the meeting closed in uproar. CORRECT REPORT IS SUPPLIED. From “ The Animals' Defender arvd Zoophilist,” a copy of which accompanies the Hon Stephen Coleridge’s letter, the following report of the proceedings is taken:— At the annual meeting of the R.S.P.C.A., the following resolution was proposed by Mr Stephen Coleridge, and was only lost by five votes. But inasmuch as ten members of the council voted against it. the majority of the unofficial members present were in favour of it. “ That the members of the R.S.P.C.A. at this annual meeting regret that this society, by its official representatives, has refused the legacy of £IO,OOO bequeathed to it by the late Mrs Grove-Grady.” Earlier in the. proceedings Mr Hu- I bert Stephens asked whether Lord j Danesfort’s recreations were correctly reported in “ Who’s Who ” as “ hunting and shooting.” and Lord Danesfort from the platform said, “ Yes, that he was in the habit of'hunting, and did not think it entailed any unusual cruelty.”

Mr Coleridge then said: I will begin by quoting the first rule of the society. 1 1 is as follows: “ The object of the so-

ciety fS to promote kindness and to prevent or suppress cruelty to animals, and to do all such lawful acts as the society may consider to bte conducive or incidental to the attainment of those objects.” There is nothing in any of the clauses of Mrs GroveGrady's will that is not in absolute accord with the rules of this society.

The will makes it a condition that everyone on that platform should be and should always have been an antivivisectionist, and should also be opposed to ail sports that involve the hunting of animals or the taking of animal life. First a-s regards vivisection :

We have to thank Lord Banbury for the splendid work he has done first in the House of Commons and later in the Lords in bringing in his Bill again and again to exempt dogs from vivisection, and in the name of thousands of humane people whom I have the honour to represent I now express our deep and abiding gratitude to him. Let us remember also that he and Mr A. G. Scott went before the last Royal Commission on Vivisection representing the .R.S.P.C-A., and declared that this society very properly were opposed to animals being tortured by vivisectors, and maintained that all vivisections should take place under proper anaesthesia, and that every animal should be destroyed before it could recover consciousness.

Next, as regards hunting wretched animals to death: I certainly think it is high time this society took a stand against it. I may tell you that in 1907, nineteen years ago, I proposed at the. annual meeting of this society, and carried with only two dissentients, a motion instructing the council to prepare and press upon Parliament a Bill totally ‘to suppress otter hunting. Mr Montagu Fowler, one of the coun-

dl, speaking against that motion from among the council on the platform, endeavoured to put me off with the information that the coundl had already appointed a special committee to investigate and report upon the whole question of “ sport.” From that day to this nothing has ever been done to fulfil that resolution, and I suppose that committee of Mr Montague Fowler’s must have been sitting ever since! Well! if that committee has ever made its report, I should think it must have been drafted in the other world to w’hich most of its members must nowhave been translated. By refusing this magnificent bequest from Mrs Grove-Grady, your council have proclaimed themselves the supporters of all those cruelties which this noble woman abhorred. Personally, I am absolutely in accord with every condition attached to this bequest. I regret, and T invite the members* of the society to share niv regret, that the supporters of those cruelties should have found their way on to that platform. where they sit like stone images beside the road of progress in ignoble infmobility while the rest of the humane world goes gloriously forward. The hands of many rich people have been stretched out to endow vivisection and to support the hunting to death of animals. Not so with this wise and humane woman. Her last will and testament was designed to endow and to consecrate the spirit of mercy and loving kindness to God’s helpless, humble creatures, and from the grave her voice calls us all

“ Forward to the starry track Glimmering up the heights beyond us, On! and always on!” Miss Turnbull seconded Mr Colcridge’vS motion, a clergyman opposed it, and Lord Banbury said that he himself and the Prince of Wales hunted, as did also Lord Danesfort who sat beside him, and asked if the meeting thought they ought to be got rid of one by one, in turn.

Mr Coleridge was then asked from the platform whether he wanted a vote taken, and he replied, “ Most certainly.” Whereupon the votes were counted, with the result recorded above.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr Coleridge proposed a vote of thanks to Colonel Wyllie, who was in the chair, which was heartily carried.