INTRODUCTION v 



there is much to gratify and nothing to offend ; but he has by no means 

 finished his task. Having, he says 



' Discharged our duty to the Public and the Author in the capacity 

 of Reviewers, we cannot think of dismissing a subject that never till now 

 came so professedly before us without introducing a word or two con- 

 cerning humanity to the brute creation : although we believe that this 

 is a subject of which true sportsmen never think or wish to be reminded.' 



The insinuation conveyed in the concluding words was sufficiently 

 unfair; but the critic proceeds to develop his case on passages quoted 

 from the book : 



' Thus we find, eat or not eat, work or play, whipping is always in 

 season, and as there is so much stated work to perform we need not enquire 

 why two whippers-in beside the huntsman are required for one pack of 

 fox-hounds.' 



Beckford makes the first words of this comment the text for an ex- 

 planatory note to the passage which evoked it (p. 22) ; the reviewer's 

 curious conception of the functions of whippers-in justifies his suggestion 

 that the critic seemed to be unacquainted with his subject ! Again, anim- 

 adverting upon the precept that ' we should give scope to all the hare's 

 little tricks, nor kill her foully and over-matched,' the reviewer delivered 

 himself in these terms : 



' Thus the result of a true sportsman's compassion is not to put a 

 speedy end to the sufferings of the little timid animal, but to prolong its 

 terror until it has tried all the efforts agonized nature can dictate.' 



And again referring to the author's advice to destroy old hounds 

 which, as Beckford points out, he materially misquotes : 



' Of a truth a sportsman is the most uniform consistent character, 

 from his own representations, that we ever contemplated.' 



Inasmuch as Beckford thought it worth while to issue a new edition 

 rebutting, in the footnotes we all know, the charges levied against sports- 

 men generally and himself as their spokesman, it has seemed worth while 

 to examine to this extent the lucubration itself ; the more, since it was 

 instrumental in revealing the identity of the author. The dignity and 

 restraint of the preface to which Beckford attached his name can only 

 be appreciated at the full after perusal of the Monthly Review attack. 

 Though he amplified some of the passages in the first edition and gave 

 neater finish to many sentences, Beckford did not in the second edition 

 tone down nor alter a word in any of the passages attacked. How keenly 

 he felt the accusations of wanton cruelty his footnotes show, but calumny 

 could not make him qualify in the least degree any word he had written. 

 We want no other evidence of his character than is furnished by his 

 prompt disclosure of identity. 



Beckford's character for humanity scarcely needs defence ; if his 



