Sir, Tom Baldwin (Comment, September 8; letters, September 10 and 13) writes: In any democracy there are certainly issues on which the rights of a minority need to be defended against the majority, but it is just plain silly to suggest that (hunting) is one of them.

However, this is not just about an issue, but about a principle — the principle of individual liberty which is universal and indivisible. I say “indivisible” because we profoundly injure ourselves if we think that destroying the liberty of this minority, however privileged, does not undermine the liberty of us all.

Of course there are very rare occasions where that is justifiable, but what really is silly is to believe that preserving the liberty of foxes is one of them, particularly since the Burns report conclusively scotched the cruelty argument.

In short, though neither a marcher nor a hunter, I personally consider that the issues here are grave enough to warrant the House of Lords pushing the Government to use of the Parliament Act if we have to. Sadly, the Commons is no longer a reliable bastion of basic rights.

Yours truly,
ANDREW PHILLIPS,
House of Lords.
September 13.

From Mrs E. E. Witts

Sir, If it is correct, as you state (leading article, September 9), that “The Parliament Act was designed for measures of high national importance and unquestioned urgency”, what are the grounds upon which the Government intends to invoke it to enable the Hunting with Dogs Bill to be enacted? Is this another instance of the checks and balances of our common law being ignored or overruled, if inconvenient for our present legislators?

I remain, Sir,
ELIZABETH E. WITTS,
16 Parkside Avenue,
Wimbledon, SW19 5ES.
September 13.

Explore Letters

• Feedback