and not merely the obsessions and impediments of life, is a subject for mockery and derision.

It is much to be regretted that even among social reformers a "Shawism" should often prove to be a stumbling-block, and that they should take refuge in the utterly mistaken notion that its author is merely "poking fun" at them. As well might the sick man accuse the doctor of levity because he gilds the pill. In reality Mr. Shaw is one of the most serious and painstaking of thinkers; his frivolity is all in the manner, his seriousness in the intent, whereas, unhappily, with most people it is the intent that is so deadly frivolous, and the manner that is so deadly dull.

The " 'egotism," again, that is a trial to some of his readers, who think it a breach of the proprieties that he should write so much “about himself "—what is it? There are at least two kinds of egotism, the tolerable and the intolerable variety. The objection, we take it, which one feels to the egotist in general, is not that he should attempt to show us his own personality, but that he should have no personality to show; just as we are indignant with the exhibitor of the "live mermaid" at a fair, not because we should not like to see a mermaid, but because we have so many times been put off with some lifeless and fishy substitute. Where there is a genuine ego, we shall not quarrel with the egotist. The men who can talk naturally and frankly about themselves, and have real selves to talk about, are rare enough, but Mr. Shaw is one of them; and those who can read between the lines of his autobiographical confidences will probably have discovered that, so far from being what is vulgarly meant by an "egotist," he in truth veils a rather delicate sensibility under a thin garb of assurance.

We have left ourselves no space to speak of "G. B. S." as author, but that is of the less consequence, because, in the first place, every one is talking of him in that capacity, and secondly, unlike so many distinguished men

VOL. IX.

C

of letters, he is not the book-man only, but emphatically "the man behind the book "; his life is the best practical embodiment of his theories. And here, again, it should be observed, the idea that he is lacking in "seriousness" is ludicrously wide of the mark, for no more conscientious writer ever handled pen. Whether we study his early novels, "Cashel Byron" and "The Unsocial Socialist," works which have never quite hit the taste of the public, though their day may be yet to come; or his later dramas, which loom so largely in the public mind to-day; or the mass of his miscellaneous criticism-musical, dramatic, literary, political, and what not-we find not only the same brilliant fancy throughout, but an unusually high level of what even a brilliant fancy cannot afford to dispense with-hard, unsparing workmanship. If the literary gentlemen who affect to regard Mr. Shaw as the spoilt child of their profession could put into their own productions some of the "grit" and backbone that characterise all he writes, we venture to think it would be better for themselves, and none the worse for their readers.

To return to the point from which we started-that aspect of Mr. Shaw's character which, though only one of many aspects, is the one that most closely concerns us here his humanitarianism. No propagandist cause can afford to omit any legitimate method of advocating itself, and a personal argument (even where the torture of our fellow-creatures is concerned) is often of greater weight than an appeal to principle. Let us, therefore, make the most of Bernard Shaw as humanitarian, for we are justly proud of him. He is our proof-positive that what are called heart and brain, feeling and intellect, humour and humanity, are not merely compatible, but are then only at their best and brightest when united and working harmoniously in the same person.

CRUEL SPORTS

DURING recent years there has been considerable searching of heart among the more reflective portion of the community on the subject of certain current forms of "sport." The practices which have come under review are the shooting of birds from traps, coursing rabbits on grounds which afford the animal no fair chance of escape, the butchery in the battue of hand-reared pheasants, the hunting to death of foxes, otters, hares, and wild stags, fishing with live bait, and the carted-deer chase.

The Humanitarian League, formed in 1891, has, as it is well known, set its mark of disapprobation on killing and torturing animals as an amusement, holding that no age can be regarded as highly civilised which permits such practices to go on without protest. The League has not confined itself to condemning these things, but it has carried on an active warfare against them, making requests of Parliament from time to time that the more repulsive sports should be prohibited by law.

This work could not, of course, expect to be crowned with success as long as the Royal Buckhounds continued to be a State institution. Against the Royal Hunt, therefore, the League had for many years to direct its main endeavours. When that establishment was abolished in 1901 the way was cleared for the League to push its demand for such an amendment of the law as would penalise those sporting customs which appeared to be of the worst order. A Bill, with this object in view, has 35

C 2

been kept before Parliament, called, in the first instance, the Sport Regulation Bill, then the Spurious Sports Bill.

The Bill seeks to bring to an end shooting birds from traps, hunting carted deer, and coursing rabbits in enclosed grounds. This is a small thing to ask Parliament for, as these so-called sports are held in detestation by the rightminded section of the community. Proof of what I here assert was made manifest on November 14 of last year, when the Humanitarian League held a remarkably well attended Conference at the Westminster Palace Hotel, S.W., to deal with the question of Spurious Sports. Delegates from numerous branches of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were present, as also from societies of many other sorts having a humanitarian leaning, and a large body of private and influential persons joined in the proceedings, or sent by letter strong expressions of sympathy. Great harmony prevailed, and a resolution was unanimously carried, asking the Government for the grant of facilities for the full discussion of the Bill.

While the League has confined itself to the consideration of tame-deer hunting, rabbit-coursing, and shooting birds from traps, in its petitions for legislation it has not been lax in denouncing the slaughter of game in the battue, the chasing to death of wild stags, foxes, otters, and hares. We make a distinction between morally condemning practices, and asking for their suppression by law. However bad customs are, it is no use to call for their removal by law till the public conscience goes with us.

I now refer to another body, which, whether it make any profession or not, ought, as a matter of course, to be active in support of our movement: I mean the Clergy. The Clergy, speaking generally, have given us very little assistance, though some of them have put us under great obligation by the good will and zeal they have displayed in the cause of humanity.

These gentlemen occupy a position which makes them

moral leaders of the people. From this responsibility they cannot shake themselves free. They come forward, of their own will, for, secure in their high place, they profess to think they are qualified to become "wholesome examples and patterns to their flocks." It is, therefore, plain that in all matters where moral principle is at stake the Clergy should take a courageous and clear line, and uphold that which is just and right, at all costs.

Is there no moral principle involved in the pursuit of many common forms of "sport"? I say there is. And, if there be, it is fatuous for a clergyman to take up the position that, as he is not a sportsman himself, he is not concerned with these questions. Sport" enters into the common life of the nation, it is discussed at dinner-tables, it is written about in newspapers, its general features are well understood. How beside the mark, then, is the following letter from a west-country Bishop, to whom I once appealed against the horrors of the in-calf hind hunt!

"MY DEAR SIR,

"December 14, 1899.

"I regret that I cannot see my way, as a Bishop, to interfere with these sports of the laity.

66 Yours truly, etc."

He

This is throwing up the sponge with a vengeance! What is the immoral principle running through bloodsports? The very word "sport" suggests it. It has pleased the maker of the world to create an order of beings lower than men. He has organised them with great care. has not only caused them to live, but endowed them with faculties enabling them to enjoy existence. Birds, beasts, and insects have power to feel pleasure and pain, as well as human beings. These feelings they express in speech and act. Fishes leap for joy in the waters, birds sing their songs, the lambs gambol over the lea. This is one side of the picture; there is another.

Animals suffer at times from famine, from atmospheric